- 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) 05:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ouki edit
- Reviewed: Mark Callahan
- Comment: Aimed at a somewhat interestingly worded but still accurate hook. Reviewers should take note on WP:WEIGHT given that some aspects of this lake's existence and where exactly it existed are controversial.
Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 19:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC).
Article is new enough, and big enough. Fully referenced and balanced in presentation. QPQ performed. Earwig's checker can't cope with reference format, bu separate check finds no violations. Hook formatted correctly, links to article, and is short enough. Hook is not really in article as it does not call this "flooded". Similarly the potential reference, Baker & Fritz 2015, p. 40 (could also be p41) does not call this flooding, instead it uses verbs like persist and exist (or attributed). With the crackdown on hooks I can't let you get away with "flooded"! So please propose a new hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
the hook ALT1 is short enough at 80 characters, and more supported by the reference. So OK with ALT1 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
