Talk:San Rafael Falls

Untitled

I'm sure much more can be added to this stub - meanwhile dramatic drone-acquired imagery of before and after at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=171&v=t9axt15rNo0&feature=emb_title cheers Geopersona (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sources give a different, lower figure for the height of the falls - though it's sadly somewhat redundant detail now, other than as an historic note. Geopersona (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Now the arch has gone too. The rapid and ongoing erosion by the river into its bed above the former falls is captured at https://twitter.com/i/status/1262065056218570758 Geopersona (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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 PrimalMustelid talk 17:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that San Rafael Falls, once the largest waterfall in Ecuador, disappeared in February 2020? Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.5751
  • ALT 1: ...that the 2020 collapse of San Rafael Falls threatens to undermine Ecuador's largest dam?
  • ALT 2: ... that San Rafael Falls, once Ecuador's largest waterfall, was swallowed by a sinkhole in February 2020 and no longer exists?
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Shannon1 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/San Rafael Falls; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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: - Article says that the waterfall retreated upstream and disappeared over a few months, rather than just in February. A direct citation is also needed (the mention in the lead is ideal for hook eligibility).
• Interesting:

QPQ: - Pending
Overall: An interesting and tragic article; I would like to see the hook issue cleared up, but otherwise the article looks great. SounderBruce 05:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shannon1: Can you please confirm how many DYK nominations you have so far? If it's more than five, you need to provide a QPQ for this nomination to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Per the new tool I can confirm that Shannon1 has less than five nominations and thus does not need to do a QPQ. However, Shannon1 is currently on Wikibreak, so unless they return soon and address the issues, the nomination may have to be closed. Given that their userpage indicates a short wikibreak, the nomination may be marked for closure if there is no response or activity by the 22nd (one week after this comment). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry I've been off Wikipedia for a bit and also busy working on another article so I forgot about this nomination. I'll add the citations to the lead. Would it be better if we changed the wording to "collapsed in February 2020 and disappeared within a few months"? Thank you, Shannon [ Talk ] 17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• @SounderBruce: Is this ready to be approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• @Shannon1: Please create an ALT hook that conforms with the statements in the article and source. The proposed wording in your comment should be fine. SounderBruce 04:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Added an alt hook below the first hook. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shannon1: A modified version of the ALT0 hook would work better; ALT1 is not readily present in the article, so it is harder to independently verify. SounderBruce 04:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Tried doing that. Shannon [ Talk ] 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 is good to go. SounderBruce 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)