Template:Did you know nominations/Rattling Run (Little Mahanoy 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 Jolly Ω Janner 06:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rattling Run (Little Mahanoy Creek)[edit]
Rattling Run
- ... that Rattling Run (pictured) is a Coldwater Fishery, but has no fish, as of 2001?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 20:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC).
New and long enough, all non-lead ¶ have inline citations, checks for copyvio reveals no problems (e.g. [1]).
- A complete QPQ review still needs to be performed; the one listed above only covers article length, age and QPQ, but does not cover other aspects of the DYK rules, such as whether or not the hooks for that article are verified in the article and whether or not checks for copyvio were performed. Regarding this nomination, I cannot find a statement anywhere in this source provided in the Rattling Run (Little Mahanoy Creek) article that backs content of the hook, both about it being a coldwater fishery and having no fish, nor can I find any mention of either fact in this source used. North America1000 03:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course the QPQ is "incomplete" - it's not done yet!
- CWF stands for Coldwater Fishery, therefore ref 12 does in fact support that.
- You shold look again. The fact of no fish is very clearly supported by the table on page 16. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Jakec: Here's the rub. If your QPQ is not complete yet, then I can't approve this. See WP:WIADYK #5, "The review must address all five criteria listed here." In your edit summary you state "ridiculous" inre my review here, but those are the rules, and I have to follow them. So, in the interest of moving forward, I have performed the copyvio check for you at the Mantrika Upanishad DYK. Thanks for the clarification regarding what "CWF" stands for. Could you please clarify how page 16 (in the scroll table, page 10 of the actual document) of this source verifies that no fish are present? The word fish itself is not even on the page. North America1000 22:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
All right, I see it now: "Little Mahanoy Cr at Gordon (S19): fish=no" (here, on page 10 of the actual document). I like your perspective above about interaction, but the DYK rules are also quite important to ensure that content on Wikipedia's Main page is accurate. Otherwise, the credibility of the encyclopedia deteriorates. The QPQ is mostly done, and I have notified the nominator on their talk page about outstanding matters regarding the hooks there. AGF that you'll follow-up to verify whether or not content of the hooks provided at the Mantrika Upanishad DYK is verified in the article. Cheers, North America1000 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- A complete QPQ review still needs to be performed; the one listed above only covers article length, age and QPQ, but does not cover other aspects of the DYK rules, such as whether or not the hooks for that article are verified in the article and whether or not checks for copyvio were performed. Regarding this nomination, I cannot find a statement anywhere in this source provided in the Rattling Run (Little Mahanoy Creek) article that backs content of the hook, both about it being a coldwater fishery and having no fish, nor can I find any mention of either fact in this source used. North America1000 03:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
