Template:Did you know nominations/Baker Run, Windfall Run
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Baker Run, Windfall Run edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Baker Run is shorter than its tributary, Windfall Run?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 23:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
By relying on the National Map Viewer as a source, which requires the user manipulate an interface of greater complexity than a search bar, this may skirt the line of OR, however, other sources referenced in the article, even if not cited to the hook, are good enough to establish its veracity. Nonetheless, both articles appear to have been moved to mainspace more than 7 days ago; so I'll hold for further explanation from Jakec. This nom has been reviewed against, and determined to meet, the seven criterions of a DYK nomination, except where described otherwise. This review is written to the standards described in the Reviewing Guide which requires an icon and a description of issues discovered. Having (a) placed an icon, and, (b) described only the discovered issues, it is complete pending comment. This is not a QPQ review. LavaBaron (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: I spoke to Yoninah here; she was okay with the articles being a few days late. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That's, of course, absolutely fine with me. Naturally I would have just passed this on first review since it's so close to the line but a similar courtesy I extended to another editor this week was cited as cause for my "final warning" and topic ban by BlueMoonset. You'll understand if my reviews have to meet an extra standard of perfection since I'm editing with another editor holding a gun to my head. I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you (among other editors here, and elsewhere, over a period of many months). LavaBaron (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron:, this review in no way constitutes an "extra standard of perfection". After so many notices and warnings, could you at least specifically list the criteria that you checked? Other DYK reviewers are doing it everyday without complaint. You could, too.
- Since I answered Jakec on the DYK talk page, I was planning to review this myself. Here is my review:
- Baker Run: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. I have a question, though, as to why in the lead, Baker Run is "also called" Windfall Run, and why Windfall Run is not linked in the article (it is, in the infobox). I also would like to know where to look in footnote 1 to find the exact measurement of each stream?
- Windfall Run: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. I'm not sure how to check the hook fact on the National Map Viewer, as above. Yoninah (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yoninah Your decision to grant one-off exceptions to DYK critreia on the DYK Talk page, instead of following the DYK review criteria and explaining your rationale in the review Template, in no way meets DYK review guidelines. After so much nagging of other people to meet what you perceive to be the exacting and explicit letter of the law, could you please do so yourself? The DYK review guidelines don't end with the phrase "... except Yoninah," to the best of my knowledge. LavaBaron (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: The nominator posted on the DYK talk page asking for input from regular editors. I answered him there. As I mentioned above, I planned to do the review myself, but you beat me to it. What else do you want to know? Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Planning and doing seem to be different things. If you intend to do a DYK review please follow through. Leaving this hanging for other editors to have to try to sort-out is discourteous. You clearly had plenty of time as your were robustly participating in DYK Wikidrama in the interim. It's not a big deal, please just (1) commit to follow-through, and (2) commit to following DYK review guidelines. No further discussion on this is needed here, it's not the correct venue. Thanks, Yoninah! LavaBaron (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I'm aware of how difficult the National Map is to use, but I've realized that for those purposes this works just as well; I already added a citation to it. And I linked Windfall Run from Baker Run (not sure it's needed a second time, but it definitely does no harm). As for your other question, when streams are also known by their tributary's name, I'd guess that it's usually caused USGS officials getting careless with their mapping and mixing up stream names (which are then recorded as official variants by the GNIS since they did appear on an official map). That's certainly what happened with the nearby South Branch Bowman Creek being called Cherry Run, and maybe it happened here too. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that chart is incredibly helpful. I see the length of Windfall Run on it, but the entry for Baker Run puts its length at 1.04 mi, not 1.1 mi. Or am I not reading it right? Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the National Map sometimes differs from the Fish and Boat Commission lists by a few hundredths of a mile. In this case, TNM had the length as 1.06 miles, which I rounded up. Either way, it's pretty apparent that Windfall is a good deal longer than Baker, no? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of course. Thanks for the explanation. The hook fact appears in both articles and is verified and cited inline in both. All concerns have been addressed. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yoninah - when you say "all concerns have been addressed" it appears no actual changes were made to the hook or article since my green-check, the delay you imposed, and your subsequent green-check. It's awesome to get the affirmation from you that my review was correct all along, but maybe we could give those thumbs-up in different venues so we don't sandbag other editors needlessly in the future? Deal? Great - thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yoninah Your decision to grant one-off exceptions to DYK critreia on the DYK Talk page, instead of following the DYK review criteria and explaining your rationale in the review Template, in no way meets DYK review guidelines. After so much nagging of other people to meet what you perceive to be the exacting and explicit letter of the law, could you please do so yourself? The DYK review guidelines don't end with the phrase "... except Yoninah," to the best of my knowledge. LavaBaron (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
