Template:Did you know nominations/Red Spring Run
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Red Spring Run
[edit]- ... that some reaches of Red Spring Run have been entirely destroyed either by mining or by post-mining development?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
The article is well written. It is long enough, new enough, and nominated timely. No copyvios are found. The hook is interesting and it is cited. My question is whether the hook can be cited in a more accessible way. The citation links to a 200+ page document. You provided page numbers, but page numbers are not visible on the document (at least in my viewing). So it is pretty much hopeless to try to find the information in that source. I looked at the other authoritative-sounding reference, the Gazetteer of Streams, and it has the same problem. I don't doubt that the information is there in the source, and if necessary I will AGF; I certainly intend to approve the nomination in any case. But is there any way to allow the reader to see what the source actually says on the subject of the hook? I'm not sure how - maybe to quote a relevant sentence in the reference citation? Or might there be some other document, maybe a news story or a shorter report, that would verify the information? I don't mean for you to go to a whole lot of work, but if you can cite the information in some way that the reader can see it, it would be helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
