Template:Did you know nominations/Davis 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Davis Run

 * ... that Davis Run is one of two streams in the watershed of Catawissa Creek that has a substantial population of brown trout?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1971 Salem, Illinois derailment

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 14:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Review: Long enough, young enough, hook is sourced but rather mundane. Brown trout, yes? I have some issues with sentences like "The stream has 71 brown trout per kilometer that are less than 175 millimeters long and 27 per kilometer that are more than 175 millimeters long. There are 2111 brook trout per hectare that are less than 175 millimeters long and 188 per hectare that are more than 175 millimeters long. The stream has 269 brown trout per hectare that are less than 175 millimeters long and 101 per hectare that are more than 175 millimeters long". Thats close paraphrasing of the reports in question, and sorry to say, as boring as useless. I dont see the use of such detailed information in a WP article and I dont htink it would help much on the main page. Symbol question.svg Serten (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that any information that can be reliably sourced should go in. I don't see how it's close paraphrasing either since it's sentences and the source is a table. --Jakob (talk)  11:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We are asked to be along generic WP policy, and the article should be a "readable summary of everything within the scope", I doubt transfering data tables from a dry biogeographic assessment into mundane prose falls under that. I dont expect ay article about lokal watershed to equal Thoreaus Walden pond, but this article lacks any love of the subject, "1 Corinthians 13:2". That said I won't say no but ask for another assessment. Serten (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'll get a 3rd opinion from WT:DYK. --Jakob (talk)  12:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Agree with Serten. This is much too detailed for what should be an overview of the subject (not a "readable summary of everything within the scope"; there's information we don't have to include, because it's too detailed or irrelevant to the reason why something is notable). Aside from that, the specific information can change rapidly. Something like "A 1997 survey found that most of the brown trout in the run were shorter than 175 mm in length" would be more than enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely how is that a DYK criterion? --Jakob (talk)  17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hooks have been pulled for padding before, particularly in cases where articles would not meet the 1500 character minimum if padding had not taken place. That's not the case here, but there's another question: why exactly are you refusing to remove the information even though consensus is against including it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Padding is where you add text without adding information (or adding off-topic information). The text here does provide information and it's about Davis Run. One person's word isn't consensus, especially where someone else disagrees (calling content "dry" [articles are supposed to be dry and factual] and "boring" and "useless" doesn't really make a convincing argument about why a quarter of a perfectly sourced and already fairly short article should be removed). --Jakob (talk)  01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Repeating drivel is padding, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The information is both out of date (yet phrased as if it is current) and much too detailed for a summary-style approach. Without trimming, I cannot pass this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't write drivel and it isn't repeating the same information. If you thought it was, read it again. I've changed the section to past tense. There's nothing else I can do. --Jakob (talk)  01:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, it's a river - what do you want? People who are interested in rivers...like rivers. Personally, I think they're boring as all hell. How about ALT1 ... that Davis Run in Pennsylvania is designated as a High-Quality Coldwater Fishery? If the ecology section needs a rewrite (and I think it should be called 'Ecology'), it can easily be rewritten. There is varied information in there, it needs unpacking and proper display. Perhaps with relevant links to the main articles on the subject. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've retitled that section. Since there are many High-Quality Coldwater Fisheries in PA, perhaps something like ALT2:  ... that most of Davis Run (pictured) is more than 500 meters from a road? --Jakob (talk)  18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I had a look at the article and I agree with Serten and Crisco that there was a lot of unnecessary detail here; I removed one paragraph of run-on measurements from Ecology and I don't think it hurts the presentation at all. I am unable to even find "Davis Run" in footnote 2; what page is it on? I also have a question about the first line under Hydrology: If the stream is infertile, how is it home to 6 species of trout?
 * If the akalinity and acidity of the stream stands in contrast to the presence of fish life, maybe we can devise a hook out of that. Otherwise, here is another alt suggestion:
 * ALT3: ... that Davis Run, a tributary of Catawissa Creek, hosts both brown trout and brook trout, and is an excellent source for angling? Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree that anything should be removed, but I won't say anything more about it. cntrl+F doesn't work on some PDFs; but go to page 54 and you should see Davis Run. I don't particularly care whether ALT0 or ALT2 or ALT3 is used. --Jakob (talk)  23:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't see the hook fact for ALT0 in Footnote 4. And what about my question about infertility? How can it support fish life if it's infertile? Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From my understanding of this, an infertile stream is defined as one in a specific pH range: 5.5 to 7.0. The information supporting ALT0 is found on page 12. "Except for Davis and Trexler Runs, brown trout populations throughout the basin were sparse." --Jakob (talk)  17:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK, let's get this show on the road. ALT0, which you seem to prefer, is verified and cited inline. Article is new enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. ALT0, which you seem to prefer, is verified and cited inline. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Very interesting definition of infertile streams. Looks like a potential article! Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)