Template:Did you know nominations/Ambo Mineral Water

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ambo Mineral Water

(

)

... that the last emperor of Ethiopia used to travel to Ambo Senkele, Ethiopia, to drink the mineral water that is bottled under the Ambo Mineral Water brand?

ALT1:... that Ambo Mineral Water has been described as the "oldest modern mineral water" and Ethiopia's "oldest mineral water bottler?"
Reviewed: Thelma (1910 film)

5x expanded by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Note that I prefer the initial hook for its historical content. Alt1 has been provided simply to provide another option. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No problemo. Well done, NA. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think that's silly. But thanks for the reminder--I meant to add "I prefer the first hook", which I tweaked some. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I changed the hook back to the original, to read "that is bottled", (from "that is now bottled"), because per the chronology at the Emperor of Ethiopia article, the brand was already existent during this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Silly or not, someone has to start the review process. If I were building a prep set, I would pass over this rather than spend the extra time doing all the necessary article checks for the first time. Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Silly, yes. Jesus Christ. I started and finished the fucking review process. (I've done over 300 of these, so you could think that when I say "OK" it's in fact OK.) It's expanded enough: it was short and now it is long. It's written reasonably well enough. (Wait--sorry, quality is not our concern). The shit seems to be verified properly without egregious or obvious copyright violations. The non-free fair use logo is in order. The Reporter Ethiopia link is down and the WSJ article is behind a paywall, but given that NA has been here for years and isn't currently blocked for all kinds of disruption, I suppose I can apply good faith. The hook is somewhat interesting and the hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article and it is neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people. Oh, it has citations at the ends of paragraphs. And bonus points to NA for not wikilinking $. Now, if you can put all the right stamps and signatures in all the right places on all the pieces of paperwork, feel free to send this on. I think I'm done with this nonsense--I'm never catching up with Ernst and Crisco anyway. Sayonara. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Restoring tick per your review. Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)