Template:Did you know nominations/Zerbe 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 4meter4 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Zerbe Run
[edit]
Zerbe Run in Trevorton, Pennsylvania
... that Zerbe Run (pictured) was called "Zerbe Creek" on a 1965 USGS map, even though locals and all other sources called it "Zerbe Run"?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 20:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC).
- ALT1:
... that although the channel of Zerbe Run turned yellow from sulfur pollution in the early 1900s, a report deemed that it did not pose a threat to public health?Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: ALT1 would be excellent, but it was actually the discharge of sewage into Zerbe Run that was said not to pose a threat to public health - no claim was made about the sulfur pollution's effects on public health. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh. Somehow I thought the sewage was sulfur. So how about shortening it:
- ALT2: ... that the channel of Zerbe Run (pictured) was colored yellow from sulfur pollution in the early 1900s?
- Or:
- ALT3: ... that a 1909 report deemed that the discharge of sewage into Zerbe Run (pictured) did not pose a threat to public health? Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- ALT1:
Full review needed. Yoninah (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Long enough and new enough (although the submission has been posted under the wrong date, it was actually moved to mainspace on 22 December). QPQ done, no copyvio found. I don't understand why ALT2 has been struck, it is a good hook, so I have unstruck it. Both ALT2 and ALT3 qualify and are cited in the same source.- There is an issue with clarity, but I don't think it is serious enough to prevent DYK promotion. Both the sulfur pollution and the sewage pollution are covered in the same two-sentence paragraph as if they are related, but no indication is given of what the relationship actually is (or a clarification that they are not related if indeed they are not). The source seems to indicate (from the small snippet that is visible) that they are related in that it is not harmful to discharge sewage into an already polluted stream. Also, this source says that until the sewage was cleaned up, it was having the beneficial effect of neutralising the acidity caused by sulfur in the streams. Again, I'm only seeing a snippet and Zerbe Run is not visible in the snippet, but it is mentioned on the page. I would recommend asking WP:RX to obtain the relevant pages of those sources so the article can be improved. But again, I don't think this need hold up DYK. SpinningSpark 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
