Template:Did you know nominations/Fish River (Alaska)

The following is an archived discussion of Fish River (Alaska)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC).

Fish River (Alaska)

(

)

... that Walter Curran Mendenhall found obscure fossils on Fish River at White Mountain, Alaska?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Peloursin

5x expanded by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 04:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC).

Length and age check out. Hook is interesting enough. Source checks out. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the expansion was material from PD sources - excluding PD material leaves the article well short of a 5x expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- :S is that a rule? Sorry I wasn't aware of that! --Errant ^(chat!) 11:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Sorry about that, but yes. According to rule 2-b, text directly copied from PD sources (although this is allowed on Wikipedia) are not counted when calculating article length for DYK purposes, because it's not technically "new and original content". Chamal ^T•C 14:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have rectified by paraphrasing the PD sources. I have also added more text from other sources. Please see.--Nvvchar. 02:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Better, but there's still enough close paraphrasing of PD material to leave it short of 5x expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting this sign here, because work seems to have been done on the article. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Original reviewer seems unwilling to get back here. Well, I can't check all the PD sources from my location, but seeing as lots of reconstruction has taken place I think it's safe to assume this one meets all the requirements now. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll reiterate the call to Nikkimaria: 24 hours after such a talk-page notice before invoking "unwilling" seems awfully short to me. I'm also very wary of "I think it's safe to assume this one meets all the requirements now", since other people's like assumptions on close paraphrasing have proven problematic in the past. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I'd responded earlier. It's just barely over the line now. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)