Template:Did you know nominations/Price Creek, Pancoast 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 Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Price Creek, Pancoast Creek
edit( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
... that in the early 1900s, part of Price Creek was full of culm, but its tributary Pancoast Creek was instead discolored by sewage?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 18:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC).
New (28th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check but be careful of close paraphrasing even from the older sources, QPQs done but I noticed that many of your recent reviews did not check for QPQs, so something to consider. Hook facts check out (3b) but it doesn't appear to make sense. If Pancoast is a tributary into Price, and Price is the one that has culm contamination halfway down, why would we care that Pancoast has no culm? Instead it could be phrased that Pancoast contributes sewage and Price adds culm, if it's even still true. How does notability work on this stuff? The creeks don't appear to be the subject of independent commentary, unless there is some kind of content guideline that covers them. czar ⨹ 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Earwig results show 13% for Price Creek and 5% for Pancoast Creek. Almost all PA streams are notable, but even if they weren't, it would probably pass GNG (I don't even know what a non-independent source for a geographical feature would be). I don't know what you have against the hook, but it could possibly be split. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Independent commentary as in discussed on its own—I wasn't talking about independence from the subject. Didn't know about NGEO, which is why I asked. What is Earwig? I don't have anything "against" the hook—I explained what I felt was unclear about it. czar ⨹ 23:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Czar: As I have said, I have no objection to splitting this nomination, if you think that would make the hooks more interesting. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- It may not be necessary if you can clarify what I said I didn't understand above. Feel free to split if you would prefer. – czar 21:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Czar: As I have said, I have no objection to splitting this nomination, if you think that would make the hooks more interesting. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Independent commentary as in discussed on its own—I wasn't talking about independence from the subject. Didn't know about NGEO, which is why I asked. What is Earwig? I don't have anything "against" the hook—I explained what I felt was unclear about it. czar ⨹ 23:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Splitting into ... that in the early 1900s, Price Creek was full of culm? and ... that in the early 1900s, Pancoast Creek was discolored by sewage? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Meh. I think the original is better. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Suggesting an ALT2 to spur discussion and a possible final review. A cursory look makes it appear that all is in order. - Dravecky (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that in the early 1900s, Pennsylvania's Pancoast Creek was discolored by sewage before it flowed into Price Creek, which was partially filled with culm?
Per Dravecky, final review including ALT2 is hoped for. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- The hook checks out and has a citation in each article, but Pancoast is very similar to its source so as to constitute close paraphrasing. Also I thought there was a DYK rule that double/multi hooks require the full hook facts to be mentioned in both articles (i.e., Pancoast should mention the part of the hook re: Price), but I can't find it in the guidelines. ALT2 preferred over the main, though I still don't see how they're particularly interesting/"hook"-y together. Requesting another reviewer/second opinion. – czar 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see no close paraphrasing, but if there is, feel free to fix it yourself. I have recently learned from BlueMoonset that there is no such rule regarding multi-hooks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Source: Pancoast Creek, which is a tributary of Price Creek, is clear of culm from source to mouth, though it receives streams of surface water and sewage which discolor it.
- WP page: Pancoast Creek was clear of culm from its source downstream to its mouth, unlike Price Creek, which it is a tributary of. However, Pancoast Creek was discolored by streams of surface water and sewage.
- There are many ways to rephrase the WP text so that it doesn't closely follow the source ("clear of culm", "streams of xy"). Price's WP page uses similar phrases to the source too. I don't think it would even be an issue if the article noted that it incorporates PD text (published 1916)... I won't be fixing it myself as I've stepped away from this nom.
- – czar 12:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see no close paraphrasing, but if there is, feel free to fix it yourself. I have recently learned from BlueMoonset that there is no such rule regarding multi-hooks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
These two articles are long enough and were new enough when nominated. The hook facts have inline citations to reliable sources. The articles are neutral. The wording in places is somewhat similar to the sources, but it is very difficult when providing technical information not to use similar phrases to the original, and I do not think there is unacceptable close paraphrasing in this instance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
