Template:Did you know nominations/Koyuk River

The following is an archived discussion of Koyuk River'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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC).

Koyuk River[edit]

(

)

... that tributary creeks of the Koyuk River include Dime and Sweepstakes?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/List of conservation areas in Crawley; Dyers Almshouses

5x expanded by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 03:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC).

Hook, length, and date check out. No close paraphrasing. Image checks out. Good to go.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not enough original material to meet expansion requirements. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Expansion and paraphrasing done now.--Nvvchar. 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is good to go now! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this from the prep area as the hook fact is not contained in the article. Harrias ^talk 06:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference is very much there as ref 3 [1] a book ref at the end of the lead. Two reviewers have verified it earlier. Probably you missed it.--Nvvchar. 09:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nvvchar, you removed the fact yourself—doubtless accidentally—during your April 18 edits. So the original April 15 reviewer had correctly noted its presence, though the post-expansion reviewer clearly missed that it had disappeared. It wasn't in the lead when Harrias removed it; Materialscientist added it there this morning after the hook had been removed from the prep area. Both the article mention and the reference confirmation have to be in place. Harrias did the right thing to remove the hook under the circumstances: the facts were not in the article at the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for giving this the go!-sign when the hook was in fact not in this article. I could swear I had checked the nomination for it, but I must have forgotten to do so. Mea culpa. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for initially approving this before it was ready. I'm still getting used to the expansion requirements.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was no accusation intended. --Nvvchar. 01:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course there wasn't. Doesn't mean I shouldn't take responsibility for my actions ;) —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A fresh reviewer would be nice. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like all the close paraphrasing concerns with the public domain sources have been dealt with and the article is now well beyond the 5x expansion requirement. The hook line has also been returned the article and it is probably cited. The article passes all other DYK criteria for date, referencing, etc and is now good to go. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)