Talk:Clark Lake Park

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 21:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sunset at Clark Lake

• ... that the city of Kent, Washington, spent $7.2 million to complete a trail around Clark Lake Park (pictured)? Source: https://www.kentreporter.com/news/kent-city-council-approves-7-2m-purchase-of-land-near-clark-lake-park/
  • ALT1: ... that it cost the city of Kent, Washington, $7.2 million to complete a trail around Clark Lake Park (pictured)? Source: Same as main
  • ALT2: ... that completing a trail around Clark Lake Park (pictured) cost the city of Kent, Washington, $7.2 million? Source: Same as main
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Any of the hooks are fine for me

Created by DirtyHarry991 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Clark Lake (Kent, Washington); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Why isn't the article about the park as a whole, rather than just the lake? The sources appear to indicate the park as the subject. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: I intended for the article to cover both subjects, and coverage of the lake necessarily involves the park (and vice versa). The lake is more likely than the park to be considered notable per WP:GEONATURAL, but I can move the page to Clark Lake Park if you wish. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There are only two sentences in the article that have the lake specifically as the subject, and only one of the five references. So yes, I think the article needs to be moved to the de facto topic of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• • • • • • @Gatoclass: I moved the page. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: All good now. With regard to the hooks, my preference is for the wording in ALT0. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

The front page description is not consistent with the content of the article. 73.251.120.214 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)