- 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 Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Abrahams Creek edit
- ... that Abrahams Creek (pictured) has a daily sediment load of 13,700,000 pounds (6,230,000 kg), but is not considered to be impaired?
- ALT1:... that Abrahams Creek (pictured) is also known as Abraham Creek, Abraham's Creek, Abram Creek, and Abrams Creek?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Calcinus verrillii
- Comment: About ALT0: For comparison, Hemlock Creek has about 35,000 pounds of sediment per day and is impaired. About ALT1: It's rather rare for a creek to have four official variant names.
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 13:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
- New, clearly long enough and within WP guidelines. Both hooks cited, but ALT1 would be preferred. In ALT0, The fact of "is not considered to be impaired" appears to be a deduction from the source not an explicit statement as the source is dealing with another creek and using data on Abrahams as a reference creek for comparison. ALT1 is straight forward and explicitly supported by the cited source. Otherwise article is comprehensive and well done.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
*@Mike Cline: Thanks for the quick review. I'd just like to note that ALT0 is an explicit statement. The source states that Abrahams Creek "attains its designated uses", which is synonymous with "not impaired" (see page 3). --Jakob (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Eh, never mind. ALT1 is probably more interesting for casual readers anyway. --Jakob (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- * I would personally consider the need to refer to two different sources and still need to make the deduction that "attains its designated uses" is synonymous with "not impaired" (it may be but that is not explicit the source above) is an overall deduction that Abrahams Creek is not impaired when referring only to the cited source in the article. There's no doubt that Abrahams Creek is "not impaired" but the source for the sediment load doesn't say that explicitly as far as I can tell. ALT1 as you say is the best choice here. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)