Template:Did you know nominations/Stony Creek (Black Creek)

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 97198 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Stony Creek (Black Creek)

(

)

... that most of the Stony Creek watershed is forested, but nearly a third is barren land?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/James Wood Bush
Comment: My 117th nomination (though only 108 have gotten to the main page so far)

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC).

DYK checklist template

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - n

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: Hook is rather vague and uninteresting when compared to source. ALT1 suggested. Nominator's name not on given QPQ. The article itself is bland and uninteresting. I am dubious about its notability. And what is the reasoning behind the capitalization of Migratory Fishery and Coldwater Fishery? Georgejdorner (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

- ALT1: ~~... that Stony Creek is both a migratory and coldwater fishery?~~ Georgejdorner (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: What are you talking about? My name is on the QPQ. Here is a diff for proof. Articles are not required to be interesting. Article is notable as a named geographical feature or even the GNG. I find the hook to be quite precise. --Jakob (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the info on notability. I have six years in WP, but never knew of its gazeteering purpose.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The diff above shows a driveby comment in a review. Could you please supply an actual review, a la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide?Georgejdorner (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: If you actually bothered to read the nomination page, you'd see that I approved the nomination. Please just review the article, okay? --Jakob (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

When I actually read the nomination, I see Yoninah signing off on it at the bottom. However, if you insist that you actually reviewed the article instead of just commenting, of course I will accept your word in good faith.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, if you read the whole thread on Template:Did you know nominations/James Wood Bush, you will see that Jakob did do a complete review. I just came by to promote it and had a question about which hook was approved. I did not review the nomination myself, but simply restored Jakob's tick after getting clarification from the page creator. The words "restoring tick" are in my comment and in the edit summary. Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unusual for a WP editor to have two accounts. How was I supposed to guess the name of the one not given in this QPQ nom, even if I know you have dual accounts?
When reviewing an article in a field which is unfamiliar to me, I often inquire about notability. In this case, a three mile stream seemed inconsequential. There is no insult intended in the request, just a bid for information to fairly evaluate an article.
And if articles are allowed to be boring, hooks are not.
And, once again, I wonder about the odd capitals.
Could we now please settle down to the business of reviewing a DYK nom?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unusual for a WP editor to have two accounts. How was I supposed to guess the name of the one not given in this QPQ nom, even if I know you have dual accounts? I do not have two accounts. I have a custom signature.

"Jakec" does not read "Jakob". If you were consistent in usage, and always used your custom signature, I would not have been confused.

And if articles are allowed to be boring, hooks are not. True.

And what do you then suggest for a fascinating hook?

And, once again, I wonder about the odd capitals. They're official government designations.

Fair deal. But to be nitpicky, it would be nice to have some explanation of that for the reader. And no, that is not a complaint constraining your nom. Just a tip.

Could we now please settle down to the business of reviewing a DYK nom? Yes, let's. --Jakob (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to suggest alternate hooks?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: The line "Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)." is automatically generated. My signature is --Jakob (talk) , as it has been since May. Anyway, I think the current hook is interesting enough, but ALT2: ~~... that the concentration of water hardness in Stony Creek is over 100 milligrams per liter, nearly four times that of any other major headwater tributary of Nescopeck Creek?~~ --Jakob (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for a broad range of interests, and Jakob is doing an amazing job compiling a subset of articles on rivers and tributaries in the Eastern United States. This article is new enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. The original hook is very interesting, and is verified and cited inline. I added a link for watershed to the hook and to the article; I think it's important. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)