- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Riki Ott
edit
- ... that Riki Ott (pictured) survived the Exxon Valdez oil spill four years after earning two degrees in marine toxicology?
- Reviewed: Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
Created/expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nom at 12:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can find ...earning two degrees in marine toxicology' (UoW + U o S.C.), however can NOT find reference for ...survived the Exxon Valdez oil spill four years after... (please point out the reference for this. Is this wording in the Wikipedia article?) Perhaps an "infobox person" would be an improvement here, like how I used on Owen Ray Skelton. Also it is NOT a good idea to use the wording for the QPQ of "pending" - just go ahead and do a Review of an article and put there instead. Flickr picture is copyright free with correct license "cc-by-2.0" --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Doug, one correction: if the QPQ review has not yet been done, putting "pending" or something like that in the field is in fact useful and a courtesy: it tells the reviewer that the nominator knows that a QPQ is necessary, but there hasn't yet been time to do one even though the nomination is being made (perhaps because it's the last day it can be made). Some reviewers prefer not to review articles that don't yet have a QPQ, because they know they won't be able to approve it even if everything else checks out. Ideally, the QPQ should be done first, but in reality it frequently comes second, and from people who have done hundreds of DYKs, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Doug Coldwell, thanks for the review! (And thanks for the bailout, BlueMoonset.) The wording 'survived the oil spill' isn't the article. I'm just trying to convey the some elements of the story (kind of astounding, I think) of how Ott got these advanced degrees in toxicology, then moved to a 2500-person town in Alaska to start a fishing business—then suddenly found herself at the epicenter of the biggest marine pollution event in US history. Maybe you can help me think of a better way to articulate this idea in the hook? Thanks! groupuscule (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
ALT1... that Riki Ott (pictured) earned two degrees in marine toxicology, becoming unexpectedly involved with the Exxon Valdez oil spill a few years later by happenstance?
- Good to go. I lean towards ALT1 (but then I am biased, since I came up with it). Article has well over 4000 characters and either hook is under the 200 max. No plagiarism found. Thanks groupuscule for quick reply. QPQ is done. Everything looks good to me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to say it was complete happenstance, since she did move to a area with big fishing and big oil. It was definitely unexpected. Might I suggest a revision of your revision:
- ALT2 ... that a few years after earning two degrees in marine toxicology, Riki Ott (pictured) became unexpectedly involved with the Exxon Valdez oil spill?
- cheers, groupuscule (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- ALT2 sounds good to me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- For clarity, I've struck ALT1, so a passing promoter doesn't take it. Looks good; thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)