Template:Did you know nominations/Coffee Brook


 * 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 Gatoclass (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee Brook

 * ... that Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission biologists tried to visit Coffee Brook in 2001, but were thwarted by extensive signage?
 * ALT1: ... that Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission biologists tried to visit Coffee Brook in 2001, but were unable to reach it?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hanging Sword Alley

Moved to mainspace by Jakob Coles (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg The article is new enough, the first hook is compelling (I would strike out the second proposed hook as it just seems like a more vague version of the first one). However, when looking through the article, I could not find the information sourced. The only part in the article that I found about the biologists' access to the area is this sentence: (In 2001, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission biologists attempted to visit Coffee Brook during a study of the North Branch Mehoopany Creek watershed, but were unable to find a way to reach the stream), which does not tie together the access with signs as reported by the first hook. I would suggest making this more apparent by pulling more information from the source. If the information about the signage is not present in the source, then the second hook would be fine (though not preferable given my above reason). Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're missing "It is difficult to access the stream, as no part of it is within 500 meters (1,600 ft) and the area is mostly on heavily posted private property."  Jakob ( talk ) 22:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out; however, that sentence does not specifically mention it was difficult for biologists to access the stream. The quoted sentence is far too general to support the first hook in its current state. Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well let's consult the source itself: "We did not sample Coffee Brook because, despite several attempts, we were unable to gain access across the heavily posted lands surrounding the stream." (p. 9)  Jakob ( talk ) 22:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the article now.  Jakob ( talk ) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for addressing this; I apologize for the inconvenience, but it is important to make sure that the information from a potential hook is clearly stated in the article prior to putting it up for DYK. I would also recommend putting up the source and quote for future DYKs as suggested in the template. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)