Template:Did you know nominations/Lees Creek (Lackawanna River)


 * 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) 05:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Lees Creek (Lackawanna River)

 * ... that part of the channel of Lees Creek passes through coal waste, cinders, and railroad ballast?


 * ALT1:... that Lees Creek is in good condition for most of its length, but eventually loses its flow?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1630 Crete earthquake

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Starting with approved matters: new and long enough. Per the revision history, the page was actually created on 29 May 2015‎, but the nomination is still within seven days of the publishing to main namespace (the entry is listed on the DYK nominations page under Articles created/expanded on June 1). All non-lead paragraphs have inline citations, Checks for copyvio reveals no problems, content of the hook is backed by an inline citation to a reliable source in the article (here, p. 323).


 * A problem is that the QPQ review at Template:Did you know nominations/1630 Crete earthquake is being used for this nomination and for the Template:Did you know nominations/Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River) (which was approved by another user) and Template:Did you know nominations/Powderly Creek nominations. Per WP:WIADYK, #5, "For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination." The 1630 Crete earthquake review cannot be used for multiple nominations. North America1000 04:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Whoa, hold it. The 1630 Crete Earthquake is a triple nomination! The nominator added two more bolded links and I reviewed them. Even if that weren't the case, you could just, you know, have me do another QPQ instead of rejecting it. --Jakob (talk)   aka Jakec  09:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the potential confusion. However, at the 1630 Crete Earthquake nomination, you did not really provide a review for Kythira Strait. Rather, you proposed a standalone hook. North America1000 10:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did in fact do a full review of both articles, but am waiting for the nominator to respond to my concerns. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you reviewed Cretica Chronica, rejecting it for being too short, but you haven't addressed any of the five points of WP:WIADYK for the Kythira Strait nomination. The way to rectify this is to provide a full review along with your ALT suggestion. Sorry for any hassle, but I'm not comfortable stating that a full QPQ has been performed for the latter article at this time, because it really hasn't yet. North America1000 16:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's how you feel, I don't mind putting this nomination on hold until responds to my comments on the 1630 Crete earthquake nomination and the review over there gets completed. Or I could seek a 3rd opinion from WT:DYK. --Jakob (talk)   aka Jakec  13:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The QPQ review is now finished. --Jakob (talk)   aka Jakec  16:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It is my understanding that the 3 nominations that Jakec reviewed at Template:Did you know nominations/1630 Crete earthquake are being submitted as QPQs for Jakec's nominations of Template:Did you know nominations/Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River), Template:Did you know nominations/Powderly Creek, and this nomination. He put in work on reviewing all 3 articles and suggested a much better hook for Kythira Strait, so I am accepting that as the QPQ for this nomination. Here is a full review of this article: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Both hooks verified and cited inline, though I prefer the original hook. I added a link and tweaked the original hook so it wouldn't copy the source. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)