Template:Did you know nominations/Mile Run (White Deer Creek)
- The following 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 PFHLai (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mile Run (White Deer Creek)
[edit]- ... that Mile Run is really almost two miles long?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 18:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- ?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Core criteria checked per above template. Hook is questionable. Although cited in the lead, it does not appear in body of the article despite WP practice of using lead as a summary for the main text. Otherwise, GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant for DYK purposes. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- To quote WP:LEAD: "...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I made the above suggestion to help you improve your article. Why not bang out a sentence or two to improve it?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- The question is, why would I. This is not FAC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it's been approved already, so I assume that was only a suggestion, not a demand. Nvm. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not demand anything during reviews. I do try to suggest improvements, in an effort to aid my fellow editors, as I assume they have pride in their work. And no, I have not yet approved this nomination. Thank you for pointing out my erroneous tick.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is this approved or not? Because I am not going to do what you say, as it won't be an improvement. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express."
- "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions"
- The above quotes come from WP:WL. They describe the viewpoint you have expressed in the above nomination. Are you sure you want to present yourself this way to your fellow editors?
- Lastly, you are correct that you are allowed to disregard the Manual of Style if you wish and still have an article run as a DYK. Here is your approval.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is this approved or not? Because I am not going to do what you say, as it won't be an improvement. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not demand anything during reviews. I do try to suggest improvements, in an effort to aid my fellow editors, as I assume they have pride in their work. And no, I have not yet approved this nomination. Thank you for pointing out my erroneous tick.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it's been approved already, so I assume that was only a suggestion, not a demand. Nvm. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- The question is, why would I. This is not FAC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- To quote WP:LEAD: "...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I made the above suggestion to help you improve your article. Why not bang out a sentence or two to improve it?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)