- 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hammersley Fork
edit- ... that the Hammersley Fork watershed was heavily logged in the early 1900s, but has been home to almost no industrial activity since?
ALT1:... that there are no state routes or township roads in the 32.55 square mile watershed of Hammersley Fork?ALT2:... that there is a ten-mile-long Fork in northern Pennsylvania?- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Kemnitzer
- Comment: ALT2 is obviously a quirky joke-type hook.
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC).
Article length is way above minimum requirement, ALT1 and the original hook are both cited, I'm not sure which one I'd go for, though I'm tilting a bit for Alt1. All, A-OK! Good to go from my side. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Alt1 is not supported by the PDF, which shows a distinct "township roads" area for the Fork in the graphic about road ownership. Fram (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Fram: Yes, I did not notice that area at first because it was so small. I've changed the article to reflect this. Perhaps we can go with the original hook then. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
ALT3':That Hammersley Fork was so-named for Harey Potter? (Reference 13).(Si Trew (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)- I do not think this is stated in the article (and ref 13 only mentions Hammersley and Hammersley Fork once). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
ALT4. That Hammersley Fork is a good place to find a deerstalker?Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)- I don't really think that's in the article either. Possibly since April Fools is so far away, it may be better to go with a serious hook (though if there is a better serious hook, I'd love to see it). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 22:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think this is stated in the article (and ref 13 only mentions Hammersley and Hammersley Fork once). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Since ALT1 in entirety is not mentioned in the ref, perhaps, the original hook or ALT2 should be looked into. Which one is better. I will look into both for sources. But we will need someone new to review this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Rsrikanth05: How do you mean that ALT1 is not mentioned in the ref? To quote from it, "Historic logging activities were intense in this watershed, but since that time the watershed has been essentially undisturbed." and "Hammersely Fork affords an excellent opportunity to observe the natural stabilization process in a watershed with limited human activity over the last 100 years". (See page 34 of this) --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 18:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Alt1, not the original hook. I said it is not present in entirety as pointed out. The original hook is good, sourced and good to go. However I'm not too sure if my review is enough or one more is needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Rsrikanth05: Ah, my mistake. It seems I confused ALT1 with the original hook. I think your review is sufficient. You stated earlier that the article met the DYK standards and it hasn't changed since then (except for correcting the error about township roads. Perhaps you should leave a checkmark just to make it clear to the promoter that this is approved. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 19:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Alt1, not the original hook. I said it is not present in entirety as pointed out. The original hook is good, sourced and good to go. However I'm not too sure if my review is enough or one more is needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Please indicate which hook(s) you have approved. Please strike hook(s) that are incorrect or rejected. Fram (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Fram: Pretty sure it's the original hook. @Rsrikanth05: Right? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, original one. Heavily logged then, no activity now. Striking out the rest. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)