Template:Did you know nominations/East Branch Fishing Creek

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

East Branch Fishing Creek[edit]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by King jakob c 2 (talk). Self nominated at 01:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC).

  • The article is certainly long enough and has no copyright violations (not saying I thought there were any, just want to be thorough). The name of the article is different than a similar creek found in the same area: Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) (made by the same author). We may want to change the title of the article but I don't see any reason that a DYK should be stalled for that. The DYK claim only has one reference that's a publication made by an animal rescue organization called Main Line Animal Rescue (see page 19 of the publication). It actually doesn't say that he "had" a resort but that he "used" a resort near the creek. Also, surely we can find a better reference than one published by an animal rescue organization. Also, the publication wouldn't be easy to find if it were to be taken offline due to it only citing the name of the organization and the publication date. This is my first DYK comment so if I did anything wrong, please let me know. WCS100 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • @WCS100: Interestingly, I cannot seem to find another reference for the fact. I can try to dig around for some offline sources. In the mean time, what about the ALT? King Jakob C2 01:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The claim is that, "Big Run, has a pH range of less than 3 to slightly under 7". I guess I thought the ALT meant that it's normally under 3 but I think I read that on my own. Either way, that's a really interesting point. I'm no biologist but I know that a creek with a pH level under 3 is pretty damn acidic. At that level, it can only support life like bacteria. Not even plants or catfish can live at that level. At any rate, page 21 doesn't show the pH readings getting that low. Did you get that number from one of the maps? I didn't read the whole thing so I may have missed it. WCS100 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm getting that fact from the chart on page 26. Look at the chart on the top of the page. King Jakob C2 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yup, there it is. That's pretty wild. I approve of the ALT. WCS100 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Tick for clarity, based on WCS's review (ALT only). A quick glance doesn't show anything to stop this DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/East_Branch_Fishing_Creek&oldid=1022760141"