Template:Did you know nominations/White Oak Run (Lackawanna River)
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
White Oak Run (Lackawanna River)
[edit]- ... that mature trees grow directly in the stream channel of White Oak Run?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC).
- Long enough (6596 characters (1106 words) "readable prose size").
- New enough.
- Needs a detailed copy-edit and rewrite, e.g.
- What is "stowmater" in the lead?
- Why the capitals - "Coldwater Fishery and a Migratory Fishery"?
- Three one-sentances paragraphs begin with the words "White Oak Run".
- Additional Wiki-linking suggested, hemlock, rhododendron, riparian buffer etc.
- Reference 9 is NOT a WP:RS.
- Reference 10 needs expansion.
- Further comments after above points are addressed only.
AshLin (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree. Either these issues are not issues, or they are irrelevant for DYK. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Jakob's right -- the reviewer needs to check the DYK criteria, which are very limited. (He's right about In today not being a RS, though.) EEng (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Imho an article to be seen potentially by tens of thousands should not have common errors. A copy edit is such a basic level of editting, that I do not see that an unacceptable standard is being placed on the nominator. In majority of DYK noms, there are very few or no MOS issues. If the intention of the process of DYK nom review is to ensure that articles are of a minimum acceptable quality, then in spirit of that my comments are meaningful. If you would rather interpret in a literal manner, feel free to do so, but then I recuse myself from this review. Imho my actions were only in the interest of the article. AshLin (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- (a) If it were up to me we'd drop the stupid newness requirement and instead carry only GAs, but the requirement is what it is; (b) other than the RS issue you could have made all the changes you list yourself, WP:SOFIXIT. EEng (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how the use of a word that isn't in dictionaries, in this case "stowmater", can ever be considered irrelevant. Either the word is wrong, in which case it needs to be fixed, or it's a technical term that needs to be explained. And since I can't imagine AshLin has any more idea than I what "stowmater" might be, SOFIXIT is clearly an unhelpful and irrelevant suggestion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jesus, it's just a typo. It doesn't even appear in the hook. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- And it took you two reviewer requests to fix it, when it should have been done as soon as it was pointed out. Thank you for finally doing so. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. As I have reviewed other Pennsylvania rivers articles by Jakob, I am familiar with the uppercase designations of Coldwater Fishery and Migratory Fishery, which are official classifications. I do not agree with the original reviewer that the article needs a copyedit; this is straightforward, factual stuff, and is written pretty clearly. I removed the non-RS, In today; it doesn't really affect the DYK, as the paragraph in question already has a cite. Footnote 10 appears to be in order. The only source/text discrepancy I saw was that in the article, you say there is only one named tributary, Indian Cave Creek, but footnote 4 (p. 314) names a second tributary, Spruce Swamp Creek. That's the only thing that needs taking care of, IMO. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thanks for the review. Indian Cave Creek is the only officially named tributary, as in one that appears on The National Map and the GNIS. Spruce Swamp Creek is really an unnamed creek that either has an unofficial local name or was given a name for the purpose of the report. I've changed the article so say "officially named" instead of "named". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- (a) If it were up to me we'd drop the stupid newness requirement and instead carry only GAs, but the requirement is what it is; (b) other than the RS issue you could have made all the changes you list yourself, WP:SOFIXIT. EEng (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Imho an article to be seen potentially by tens of thousands should not have common errors. A copy edit is such a basic level of editting, that I do not see that an unacceptable standard is being placed on the nominator. In majority of DYK noms, there are very few or no MOS issues. If the intention of the process of DYK nom review is to ensure that articles are of a minimum acceptable quality, then in spirit of that my comments are meaningful. If you would rather interpret in a literal manner, feel free to do so, but then I recuse myself from this review. Imho my actions were only in the interest of the article. AshLin (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Jakob's right -- the reviewer needs to check the DYK criteria, which are very limited. (He's right about In today not being a RS, though.) EEng (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
