The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
5x expanded by P199 ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kississing Lake; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
@
P199: Good article but I'm not seeing the hook in the body of the article.
Onegreatjoke (
talk) 00:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
As a note I've pulled the hook out of the queue per
this discussion, which should be addressed before re-approval. -
Aoidh (
talk) 11:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I found and added a better source, a CBC News article. I propose a new alternative hook:
-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I do think the new CBC source [1] addresses the concern raised in this discussion, because the source clearly states without attribution or qualification that the lake is "the main resource for the community." However, the source doesn't mention Sherridon. Maybe that's a minor point, but perhaps it's better to rephrase the hook to speak more generally about the community around the lake.
I also have some minor NPOV concerns:
continue to threaten to pollutethe lake when pollution has clearly already occurred (see scholarly papers above).
I think if these concerns are addressed that the article will be fine. (I haven't checked for copyvios yet, but I assume the prior reviewer has done so, and so I don't expect a problem there).
Larataguera ( talk) 11:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
5x expanded by P199 ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kississing Lake; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
@
P199: Good article but I'm not seeing the hook in the body of the article.
Onegreatjoke (
talk) 00:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
As a note I've pulled the hook out of the queue per
this discussion, which should be addressed before re-approval. -
Aoidh (
talk) 11:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I found and added a better source, a CBC News article. I propose a new alternative hook:
-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I do think the new CBC source [1] addresses the concern raised in this discussion, because the source clearly states without attribution or qualification that the lake is "the main resource for the community." However, the source doesn't mention Sherridon. Maybe that's a minor point, but perhaps it's better to rephrase the hook to speak more generally about the community around the lake.
I also have some minor NPOV concerns:
continue to threaten to pollutethe lake when pollution has clearly already occurred (see scholarly papers above).
I think if these concerns are addressed that the article will be fine. (I haven't checked for copyvios yet, but I assume the prior reviewer has done so, and so I don't expect a problem there).
Larataguera ( talk) 11:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)