Template:Did you know nominations/Kuriyama River
- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Kuriyama River[edit]
- ... that the Kuriyama (pictured) is the southernmost river in Japan with a salmon run?
Created/expanded by Prburley (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 23:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
-
The "Environmental conditions" and "Use" sections both require source citations. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I left a note on the author's usertalkpage a week ago, but it was ignored. I tried to google for refs, but couldn't handle the Japanese materials. I think the options we have now are [1] forget about this DYK nom, or [2] delete/hide the two extremely short sections. --PFHLai (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that the author seems extremely active in article talk pages, but has ignored your talk-page message. I think that, of the various options, deleting (not hiding) the two unsourced sections might be best. If they subsequently get restored without sourcing, then the approved nom would have to be short-circuited. Let me know what you decide to do, and I'll follow up appropriately. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... The author came back and took care of one of the two unreferenced sections. Would waiting for a few more days allow the other unreferenced section to become properly sourced, too? Wishful thinking? --PFHLai (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- My thought? It's been two weeks. We shouldn't let this drag on forever. You might want to try deleting the unsourced material. Technically, it should be there. Then the article can safely be passed. Otherwise, we're at the end here, and in a few days will have to give up, and for two lines of unsourced Environmental information, that seems a pity, especially with such a great picture. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreeing with other reviewers, I removed the short, unsourced "environmental conditions" section. As written, I believe it was original research -- although I also think it's probably true. Adding AGF tickmark because this appears to have been the only unresolved review issue. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- My thought? It's been two weeks. We shouldn't let this drag on forever. You might want to try deleting the unsourced material. Technically, it should be there. Then the article can safely be passed. Otherwise, we're at the end here, and in a few days will have to give up, and for two lines of unsourced Environmental information, that seems a pity, especially with such a great picture. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... The author came back and took care of one of the two unreferenced sections. Would waiting for a few more days allow the other unreferenced section to become properly sourced, too? Wishful thinking? --PFHLai (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that the author seems extremely active in article talk pages, but has ignored your talk-page message. I think that, of the various options, deleting (not hiding) the two unsourced sections might be best. If they subsequently get restored without sourcing, then the approved nom would have to be short-circuited. Let me know what you decide to do, and I'll follow up appropriately. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
