Template:Did you know nominations/Stony Brook (Mehoopany 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) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Stony Brook (Mehoopany Creek)

 * ... that between 1911 and 1916, 30,000 to 40,000 feet of wood per day were logged at Crane Swamp and the headwaters of Stony Brook?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Asymphylomyrmex
 * Comment: hook is supported by page 54 of the pdf

5x expanded by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 18:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg There's something wrong with the hook. Lumber is measured in board feet, not feet. However, the source-link in the article doesn't work, so I can't see what's going on. EEng (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(EEng is a bit fierce with his symbols; that's the "probably not" one; I'll go for the "probably".) Length just on the verge but OK; neutral, age OK; no copyvio, close-paraphrasing or plagiarism; cited throughout; QPQ done; hook fact is cited (to page 43 not 54), but EEng has some issues with the units. The source says "feet" not "board feet", but that could just be sloppy. According to Merriam Webster, "board foot" was first used in 1896 (according to my friend Marion Webster it was first used in "What are you talking about, Belle? Is this that Merriam Webster 'joke' again?"), so we can't rule out board feet on the age of the source cited in the PDF. Belle (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is back online. It says "Logging records from 1911-1916 report cutting of 30-40,000 feet per day of mostly sprucet from Crane Swamp and the headwaters of Stony Brook (Taber 1970)." This may refer to the total height of the trees felled, but I just don't know. If I might suggest, perhaps a different hook should be chosen. EEng (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, how about ALT 1:  ... that Stony Brook is well-known to locals for its native trout? I admit it isn't riveting, but it's probably the second most interesting fact in the article. Alternatively, we could just take the source at face value and go with the original hook. Don't we generally take the statements of reliable sources at face value unless there's an obvious error? --Jakob (talk)  14:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a problem with the original hook, I'll leave it up to EEng (the ALT is so uninspired that I stopped reading before I reached the question mark). Belle (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand, Belle. Lumber inspires you, but trout leaves (leave?) you cold? Anyway, it's no skin off my teeth, but my counsel is to avoid the potential of a mistaken hook that we don't seem to have a way to resolve. So I'd go with ALT1, modified as
 * ALT 1A: ... that Stony Brook is well-known among locals for its native trout?
 * EEng (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Resisting the almost overwhelming innuendo opportunities. Belle (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

OK with ALT 1A then. Belle (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)