Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Oxbow Inlet"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Edwardx (reply) |
imported>Edwardx (AGF good to go) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:*ALT1 is okay, but it might be better if it mentions what was measured (especially as some are strictly speaking elements, not minerals). --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' <small><small>aka Jakec</small></small> 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | :*ALT1 is okay, but it might be better if it mentions what was measured (especially as some are strictly speaking elements, not minerals). --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' <small><small>aka Jakec</small></small> 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
::* Thank you [[User:Jakec|Jakob]] for your helpful comment. I have adjusted ALT1 in line with that. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 13:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | ::* Thank you [[User:Jakec|Jakob]] for your helpful comment. I have adjusted ALT1 in line with that. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 13:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::* [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] I wasn't planning to review this, but as no one else has, and some might think that I was or was planning to review it, I might as well. New enough. Long enough. NPOV. AGF on the hook fact and citation as the excerpt available online does not fully confirm it, but I see no reason to doubt it. Article is well-cited and all paras have cites. Dup detector found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig returned a score of only 1%. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 13:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 13:59, 17 December 2015
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Oxbow Inlet
- ... that the silica, iron, magnesium, calcium, and sulfate concentrations of the 1.5-mile (2.4 km) long Oxbow Inlet were measured in 1966?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
- Comment That hook is VERY dull. Is it not possible to find something even vaguely interesting? Edwardx (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I find it rather remarkable that a anyone would bother to do any kind of study on such a small stream, and that the results would actually be floating around in the internet somewhere. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now that you explain it in context, I do see your point. But I'm not convinced that the general public will pick up on that. I've had a go at an ALT1 to try to make it clearer:
- ALT1 ... although only 1.5-mile (2.4 km) long, Oxbow Inlet's silica, iron, magnesium, calcium, and sulfate concentrations were measured in 1966?
- ALT1 is okay, but it might be better if it mentions what was measured (especially as some are strictly speaking elements, not minerals). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jakob for your helpful comment. I have adjusted ALT1 in line with that. Edwardx (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to review this, but as no one else has, and some might think that I was or was planning to review it, I might as well. New enough. Long enough. NPOV. AGF on the hook fact and citation as the excerpt available online does not fully confirm it, but I see no reason to doubt it. Article is well-cited and all paras have cites. Dup detector found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig returned a score of only 1%. Edwardx (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)