Template:Did you know nominations/Cat Creek, Montana

Cat Creek, Montana

 * ... that Cat Creek was the site of the first commercially successful oil field in Montana, producing oil so pure it could be used in Model T cars straight from the ground? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article started "expansion" on the date given here, however the vast majority of the "expansion" was vandalism and the addition of unreliably sourced hoax material, that was not cleared up until today, at which point the article has been improved significantly from its pre-vandalism and mostly-reverted-to state. Given this, and that there are still unreviewed DYKs on this and earlier dates in the queue, I believe this falls under additional rule D9 for its date.
 * Note: Since the DYK was nominated, edits to the article have dropped it below a 5x expansion. Would request that it still be considered per WP:IAR due to overall improvement, but no hard feelings if not. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now rexpanded back past 5x. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Bzuk (talk). Nominated by The Bushranger (talk) at 00:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This is going to be a bit hard to sort out due to the vandalism issue, so feel free to challenge any of my assumptions if they are incorrect. I agree that the hoax text should not be counted against you, but credit can only be given for material added in the five-day time frame.  This version from April 1 is, as far as I can tell, vandalism-free and has about 1500 characters of prose.  The current version as of April 3 has about 5500 characters of prose, so you would be about 2000 characters short.  My question is whether the Geography and Demographics sections, which were added on March 23, are hoax text as well.  Without them you're starting at 1000 characters, which would satisfy the 5x expansion requirement, but those sections were sourced and I'd need some evidence that either the source is unreliable or that the numbers presented are incorrect.  Or you could expand the article a bit more to make the issue moot.  You've done fine work on this article so I hope this can be worked out one way or another.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The geography and demographics sections that were in the article at that time were sourced to a website that was removed on the grounds of misrepresenting census data - and that frankly looks to be the opposite of a WP:RS from my looking at it. Bzuk did all the work, so he gets the credit - but I'll see if I can't wordsmith some in the morning. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I have a current photo of Cat Creek that has just been made available that will add substantially to the current treatment. I can also add more to the article, especially in some of the more salacious aspects of the oil field story. The information on the geology, topography, climate and vegetation come from an extensive report by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1926, an undoubtedly reliable source, which was also the source for a historic photograph of the oil strike and the "tar paper" city that arose next to the oil field. The statement that the oil was so rich that tractors and Ford Model Ts could run on the oil, scooped up from a coulee, comes directly from the observations made by a contemporary oil driller, Curley Meek, one of the first drillers in the Cat Creek area, whose story was recorded in an oral disposition that is made accessible by the Montana Historical Association, and is cited in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC).
 * I'm pretty sure he was referring to the original sections that were referenced to this: when referring to questionable sourcing. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 05:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like that site has the same data for Cat Creek and the nearby town of Winnett, MT, which doesn't match the 2000 census data for Winnett. Also, Cat Creek doesn't seem to be its own CDP (unless it's part of some other CDP with a different name&mdash;I'm having trouble finding a map of CDPs in Montana).  I'm willing to say that those two sections were part of the hoax text and don't count, so you're okay on the length.  It's late so I'll have to save the rest of the review for tomorrow....  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please differentiate between the article in its original state when a series of sock/meat puppets were attacking it and the present state (post-hoax) when a more scholarly-written article has come about. I have taken care to cite every and all statements from reliable and authoritative sources, and in many cases, two reference sources validate the entry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Everything seems to be in order. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)