Template:Did you know nominations/North Branch Mahantango Creek
<
Template:Did you know nominations
- 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) 02:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
North Branch Mahantango Creek
- ... that according to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the watershed of North Branch Mahantango Creek is one of the highest-quality watersheds in the lower Susquehanna River watershed?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Paga Crocodile Pond
- Comment: The exact quote from the source is "Some of the highest quality watersheds within this subbasin were Sherman, Powell, Clarks, Stony, West Branch Mahantango, and North Branch Mahantango Creeks." As you can see from this, the sub-basin is the lower Susquehanna basin.
Created by talk). Self nominated at 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC).
New enough (for 23 May) and long enough. Hook is within size limit at 191 characters, and checks out online with citation #10, page 18. No problem with disamb links. Written in objective and neutral manner; fully cited text. Issues: (1) "Runoff" is a disambig link.(2) Re close paraphrasing. Duplicated passage: "in the impaired portion of the north branch mahantango" (citation #6).(3) QPQ is not a full review, because you only commented on the length of the hook.--Storye book (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- @talk) 15:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- @ Jakob. Thank you for correcting the article; I have struck issues 1 and 2 above. I agree that your comment on the Paga Crocodile Pond nom was valid and that you made an important contribution. But I understand "QPQ" to mean a full review. Of course you were right not to do a full review of that article, because any expansion would make your initial review redundant. My aim here is to clear the backlog of DYK reviews to assist nominators whose noms have been languishing half-forgotten for weeks or even months in some cases. It doesn't help, though, if I cut corners in order to be kind or speedy, because that kind of decision gets rejected by admin later on. It's quicker to sort this out now. If you really don't want to do another QPQ then I'm happy to donate one of my many unused ones, e.g. this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Routine Check.--Storye book (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- @talk) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Jakob, you are welcome to use my donated QPQ for this nom, as I mentioned above. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- @
- @
