Template:Did you know nominations/Donaldson Site


 * 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) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Donaldson Site

 * ... that artefacts discovered at the Donaldson archaeological site in Ontario include a child's necklace made with bear teeth? Source: "Bear bone articles have been reported from several Middle Woodland burials in Southern Ontario. Two ground and perforated bear canines were components of a child's necklace in Burial A of the Donaldson I cemetery" (From page 33 of Fox, William A.; Molto, J. Eldon (1994). "The shaman of Long Point".)
 * ALT1:... that each spring, the indigenous people of Ontario brought corpses of band members who died the previous year to the Donaldson Site for burial? Source: "Although relatively distant from the study area, the Donaldson site along the Saugeen River may be representative of a typical Saugeen settlement; it was occupied in the spring by multiple bands that came to exploit spawning fish and bury members who had died elsewhere during the year" (page 4 of Racher, P.J., ed. (12 June 2015). Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Harrington Dam and Embro Dam, Class Environmental Assessment, Township of Zorra Archaeological Research Associates.)
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Intratracheal instillation (see my DYK tracker)

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 02:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC).


 * Note to promoter and I'm still new at reviewing.
 * Article is sufficiently long (4290 characters of "readable prose size") and new (moved to mainspace November 7, 2017). Every paragraph is referenced, content is neutral. Although compare the source: "it is the largest and best documented Saugeen Complex site" to lede: "is the largest and best-documented within the Saugeen Complex", so maybe that should be reworded slightly to avoid close paraphrasing.Symbol question.svg
 * Hook 1 is interesting, stated in article, sourced, and not closely paraphrased. I'd check this if I didn't have a qualm about that one lede sentence. Update: 	Symbol confirmed.svg 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Stricken 19:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hook ALT1 might be better written to have Donaldson Site appear earlier in the second hook. And saying " indigenous people of Ontario" makes it seem like First Nations in what is now Ontario did this. However, the source only mentions "multiple bands" doing this. And saying it happens "each spring" is also maybe a bit misleading as it only happened from around 200BC to 700AD. The wording should be clearer, I think. Symbol question.svg
 * Umimmak (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You also need to verify the QPQ requirements. Regarding the sentence in the lede, I've pruned "and best-documented" (I couldn't find a concise way to include this by rewriting that somewhat lengthy and information-dense sentence). I've amended ALT1 as ALT2 to address the various concerns you had with this hook, though the result is a somewhat clunky. (I'll try to formulate a better one.) Mind  matrix  16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that in Woodland period springs at the Donaldson Site, indigenous people of Ontario brought for burial the corpses of band members who had died during the previous year?
 * has done the QPQ and the lede has been addressed. I think the new hook reads a bit awkward, since it makes it think you're talking about springs as in the source of water. Maybe it doesn't matter if the target article is later in the article if the left dislocation is awkward. I'd suggest alternate wordings of the hook, but it's my understanding that if I did so another reviewer would be necessary. Umimmak (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The tick marks apply to the entire review, to mark a nomination as successful or failed; so if you approve of only one of the offered hooks, you should state that instead (for example: "Good to go for original hook") You can also provide an alternate hook if you think none of the provided hooks are acceptable, in which case someone else would have to review that hook. Also, you should generally use one symbol per review response, preferably at the beginning of that response, for easy reference for promoters. (See Template:Did you know nominations/St. Johns, Ontario which contains several review elements.) Mind  matrix  18:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry :( . I thought that since at least one hook was good to go that meant it could move to the approved page. Umimmak (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant above. It's difficult to tell with your review because you inserted a green tick mark between two question marks. It would have been better to use the question mark for your initial review, and attached the green tick to your followup response. In a nutshell, your latest response to a nomination should contain the most recent status/symbol. Mind  matrix  19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Original hook is good to go. Umimmak (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)