- 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lindy Creek edit
... that near its headwaters, the gradient of Lindy Creek is on the order of 400 feet per mile (76 m/km), but in its lower reaches, the gradient is only on the order of 40 feet per mile (7.6 m/km)?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC).
This article is highly similar to other articles, Keyser Creek and Lucky Run, also nominated for DYK. Is merger possible? George Ho (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed of nomination as made; merger is not happening. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. The hook, though, is too statistical. Maybe you could write something about the ice pond, or about the flooding in 1936? QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I had a look and I don't think there's anything else terribly fascinating that can be pulled from the rest of the article. I suppose we could cut the statistics and just say:
- ALT1: ... that near its headwaters, the gradient of Lindy Creek is about ten times higher than it is in its lower reaches? -- Come to think of it, that's more succinct and more likely to draw in readers. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
