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 PrimalMustelidtalk 12:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
... that the 1628 ± 1 BCE eruption of Mount Aniakchak depopulated parts of Alaska and formed a caldera that produced one of the largest floods of the last 10,000 years?
ALT1 ... that the crater lake produced by the 1628/1627 BCE eruption of Mount Aniakchak generated one of the largest floods of the last 10,000 years?
ALT2 ... that the 1628/1627 BCE eruption of Mount Aniakchak was one of the largest volcanic eruptions of North America, and may have depopulated parts of Alaska?
Overall: I'm curious if the "1628 ± 1 BCE" precision is conducive to readability in a hook. While I don't personally have a problem with it, my guess it this kind of thing is discouraged for the purposes of hook readability. Alternatives to consider might be "approximately 1628", "ca. 1628", "1628/7", "1628/1627", or "17th century BCE". Not a big deal, but it is something that stuck out. I should note that the fulfillment of the "hook cited" criterion here is somewhat unorthodox. Most hooks that I review are cited directly in the article, in one or two sentences. This hook as a whole, however, appears cited in discrete parts, in multiple sections, with the first part of the hook cited in the "Aniakchak II eruption" section ("the 1628 ± 1 BCE eruption of Mount Aniakchak"), followed by the second part cited in the "Impacts on humans and the environment" section ("might have depopulated part of the area around Aniakchak"), with the "might have" wording differing slightly from the certainty of the hook itself, which instead asserts that the depopulation occurred without the hedge. This is in turn followed by the last part of the hook which is cited in the "Intracaldera lake" section ("produced one of the largest floods of the last 10,000 years"). I will be the first to admit that I've never seen a hook composed this way before. The "might have depopulated" assertion may require a hook adjustment. To summarize: waiting for a response from the nominator, mostly due to concerns about date presentation and the certainty of the depopulation in the hook vs. the hedging of the source material. I'm also curious what another reviewer will think when they try to find the hook cited in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The thing about the Aniakchak eruption is that it is one of a few prehistoric eruptions were we know the year with some certainty. 1628/1627 might be a better formulation, though. I don't think that a hook being supported by distinct parts of the article is a problem; I was more worrying about the length. Right on the depopulation bit. I'll propose two ALTs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the hooks now with fresh eyes, which do you prefer, the original "1628 ± 1 BCE" date or the new one? Also, it is okay to strike out ALT0? And do you prefer ALT1 or ALT2 or do you have no preference? Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Either ALT1 or ALT2 work; I prefer ALT1 as it is fairly definitive, but it's something other people ought to decide on. Also corrected the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Prefer ALT1. Good to go, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious if the "1628 ± 1 BCE" precision is conducive to readability in a hook. While I don't personally have a problem with it, my guess it this kind of thing is discouraged for the purposes of hook readability. Alternatives to consider might be "approximately 1628", "ca. 1628", "1628/7", "1628/1627", or "17th century BCE". Not a big deal, but it is something that stuck out. I should note that the fulfillment of the "hook cited" criterion here is somewhat unorthodox. Most hooks that I review are cited directly in the article, in one or two sentences. This hook as a whole, however, appears cited in discrete parts, in multiple sections, with the first part of the hook cited in the "Aniakchak II eruption" section ("the 1628 ± 1 BCE eruption of Mount Aniakchak"), followed by the second part cited in the "Impacts on humans and the environment" section ("might have depopulated part of the area around Aniakchak"), with the "might have" wording differing slightly from the certainty of the hook itself, which instead asserts that the depopulation occurred without the hedge. This is in turn followed by the last part of the hook which is cited in the "Intracaldera lake" section ("produced one of the largest floods of the last 10,000 years"). I will be the first to admit that I've never seen a hook composed this way before. The "might have depopulated" assertion may require a hook adjustment. To summarize: waiting for a response from the nominator, mostly due to concerns about date presentation and the certainty of the depopulation in the hook vs. the hedging of the source material. I'm also curious what another reviewer will think when they try to find the hook cited in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)