Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Tapeats Creek"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Shhhhwwww!!
imported>MB
(comment)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
::*'''ALT1'''... that '''[[Tapeats Creek]]''' ''(pictured)'' in [[Grand Canyon National Park]] is named after a [[Paiute|Southern Paiute]] who claimed the stream?   
 
::*'''ALT1'''... that '''[[Tapeats Creek]]''' ''(pictured)'' in [[Grand Canyon National Park]] is named after a [[Paiute|Southern Paiute]] who claimed the stream?   
 
:*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] This is likely to pass but still have to check. There isn't any glaring issues that can disqualify it but it can still be improved. It kinda reads as bland but it still follows the rules to pass.  [[User:Shhhhwwww!!|Shhhhwwww!!]] ([[User talk:Shhhhwwww!!|talk]]) 12:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 
:*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] This is likely to pass but still have to check. There isn't any glaring issues that can disqualify it but it can still be improved. It kinda reads as bland but it still follows the rules to pass.  [[User:Shhhhwwww!!|Shhhhwwww!!]] ([[User talk:Shhhhwwww!!|talk]]) 12:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 +
:::{{u|Shhhhwwww!!}}, not sure why you think it was "nominated on the wrong date". The article was created on 4/30 and correctly posted on that date in the nominations section. On ALT1, I think "claimed the stream" might be too vague to be understood by a broad audience, that is why I said "claimed ownership". The promoter can decide on that. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b>]] 14:02, 15 May 2017 (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 14:03, 15 May 2017

Tapeats Creek

File:Tapeats Creek.webm
Overhead view of Tapeats Creek

Created by MB (talk). Self-nominated at 01:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC).

  • The article is new and was nominated timely but on the wrong date. This doesn't affect the eligibility. Minor renovation of the hook to make it shorter and neutral. The prose passes the 1,500+ mark. The citation is good. No major policy issues. The article mostly lists facts. Has done the QPQ. The image is... interesting but unsure how to deal with it. Someone else needs to check the image. This reviewer can't. Still checking the references for issues but on the surface there seem ain't one. Maybe the hook can be improved? To something more interesting.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This is likely to pass but still have to check. There isn't any glaring issues that can disqualify it but it can still be improved. It kinda reads as bland but it still follows the rules to pass. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:U, not sure why you think it was "nominated on the wrong date". The article was created on 4/30 and correctly posted on that date in the nominations section. On ALT1, I think "claimed the stream" might be too vague to be understood by a broad audience, that is why I said "claimed ownership". The promoter can decide on that. MB 14:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)