- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Oxbow Inlet edit
- ... that the silica, iron, magnesium, calcium, and sulfate concentrations of the 1.5-mile (2.4 km) long Oxbow Inlet were measured in 1966?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
- Comment That hook is VERY dull. Is it not possible to find something even vaguely interesting? Edwardx (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I find it rather remarkable that a anyone would bother to do any kind of study on such a small stream, and that the results would actually be floating around in the internet somewhere. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now that you explain it in context, I do see your point. But I'm not convinced that the general public will pick up on that. I've had a go at an ALT1 to try to make it clearer:
- ALT1 ... although only 1.5-mile (2.4 km) long, Oxbow Inlet's silica, iron, magnesium, calcium, and sulfate concentrations were measured in 1966?
- ALT1 is okay, but it might be better if it mentions what was measured (especially as some are strictly speaking elements, not minerals). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jakob for your helpful comment. I have adjusted ALT1 in line with that. Edwardx (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to review this, but as no one else has, and some might think that I was or was planning to review it, I might as well. New enough. Long enough. NPOV. AGF on the hook fact and citation as the excerpt available online does not fully confirm it, but I see no reason to doubt it. Article is well-cited and all paras have cites. Dup detector found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig returned a score of only 1%. Edwardx (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
