Template:Did you know nominations/North Branch Shamokin Creek


 * 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 97198 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

North Branch Shamokin Creek

 * ... that Pennsylvania's North Branch Shamokin Creek is too acidic to support aquatic life?


 * ALT1:... that Pennsylvania's North Branch Shamokin Creek is too acidic to support aquatic life, but its pH has been rising?
 * ALT2:... that Pennsylvania's North Branch Shamokin Creek is too acidic to support aquatic life and is coated with iron precipitate?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Black siskin (quadruple nom)

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Length, history and reference verified. Just put the cites for the hooks (I prefer ALT2; it might work even better with the lead image) in and we can go with this (I also added the state, so people know where this creek is, and wikilinked the technical terms). Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The hooks are referenced, not in the lead, but in the body. I have added the image. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  18:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * LEADCITE notwithstanding, see Rule 3: "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article ... Facts should have an inline citation." This applies to hook facts anywhere in the article—both in the intro and in the body, regardless of how extraordinary they aren't. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And so they do, which you would notice if you looked past the lead. I will not duplicate citations and violate guidelines. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By "guidelines", I presume you're referring to WP:CITEKILL, which I don't see as particuarly relevant to this discussion. In any event, it's hardly citation overkill to cite a fact in the intro and the body—particularly so if that fact is being used on the Main Page to draw people into reading, and possibly improving, the article. Nor does LEADCITE preclude adding any additional cites to an intro beyond those it strongly recommends ("The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."). Would it kill you to add one ... extra ... cite? I don't think so, really. Look, I know the DYK criteria don't say this explicitly, but I think it's there implicitly and I doubt that finding would be unique to me. I do know that I have been requested to add such citations to hook facts mentioned in intros in the past even where those facts are cited in the body. I would say, in fact, that being used to support a DYK hook makes the fact in question extraordinary regardless of whether it is so by any objective measure. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I would not drop dead if I added an extra citation, but nor do I see any point in doing so. LEADCITE doesn't require citations in the lead, so I won't put them in. It's clear that neither of us are going to see eye-to-eye on this, so let's leave it to another reviewer, okay? --Jakob (talk)   aka Jakec  22:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact from ALT0 is cited in the body of the text and this is satisfactory. The image is appropriately licensed, the article is neutral (unlike the creek!), and I found no close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)