Template:Did you know nominations/Candle Creek

The following is an archived discussion of Candle Creek's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC).

Candle Creek

(

)

... that Candle Creek in Alaska, a tributary of Kiwalik River, derived its name from the willow twigs covered with thick snow that resembled candles?

Reviewed: Pending

Created by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 03:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC).

The hook while sourced to Moffit, is a verbatim reproduction. This applies for the reference from page 61 as well. Needs reworking. Ashwin147 (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Review: Ditto as per Ashwin147: LOTs of verbatim and too-close-for-comfort paraphrasing: single words changed within sentences; periods replacing commas to simply turn one sentence into two, etc... Other:

Map of Alaska shows a vaguely bolded river but no pinpointing of Candle Creek site.
Ref2: p.50 shows "about" July 23, 1901, not "on" July 23.
Everything as per Ref3 is good-to-go.
Ref4: unsure of usage of the word "boomed," it seems to merely have been "in-operation" until then. Also: "0.6 million" ounces? Why not simply quote the numbers as are provided (600,000), using reported as?
There are loads more of material to be mined, so to speak, from Ref2 particularly: The camp/town of Candle's exact location on the Kiwalik at the mouth of Candle. Best known of all gold-producing streams of the Kotzebue. Gave rise to the largest mining camp in the Northern Seward Peninsula. Yeilded more than 3 times as much as output of all other creeks. Approx 66 claims staked constitute every foot of land (<MY suggestion for ALT HOOK!). All Refs support it being described unquestionably as a heavily mined area. *How about noting neighboring creeks? Or equipment, techniques, jargon, etc, such as "China pumps" and "bench claims" or the boilers used for thawing frozen land, "placers", along with simple definitions.

I hope that helps. Penwatchdog (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've c/e the article so that the PD material from Moffit and Martin is re-worked. Regarding the map of Alaska, if you click on the coord's on the article page, and look at the Google link, the creek is identified by name. Here's an ALT1 (but we'd be fine with other suggestions): ... that Kiwalik River's tributary, Candle Creek, derived its name from snow-covered twigs resembling candles? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd done some copy-editing and was about to save but was alerted of your own wave of edits. I'll keep an eye on progress and make another pass in the next 24hrs. For now, Re your ALT1:

ALT2: ... that Alaska's Candle Creek derives its name from the natural phenomenon of ice melting from willow twigs in springtime, resembling candles? Something like that. (Maybe "Alaska" is necessary?) Penwatchdog (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As a double nom, can we also mention Kiwalik River in the hook? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer your last question about including "Kiwalik;" still green with protocol there. For my part, I've just made some light touch-ups to the article; held-off on making any heavy-handed changes but I'll make some suggestions here.

Rewording: good! But you changed some things which didn't need it, and didn't change some things which I think need it. One thing which may matter is the "ON" used in specifically dating the stake of the claim; I only noticed "around" in the source material (even though they word it as "around" july 23, 1901, including an exact date). i'd like someone else to rule on that finally, unless you're willing to change it to something like "in july of 1901."
Also, the hook shows twice in the article, first appearing in the intro then again near the end of the "History" section. Someone else care to weigh-in on that?
Suggestion for the fact noted in the hook, as it appears in the "History" section; I think it provides a more accurate description as per source material: "Candle Creek's name is derived from a natural phenomenon noted by the area's earliest prospectors. During the springtime, ice on the willow twigs along the creek resembled candles." Or some variation thereof?
The insertion of that "notable in 1901" bit at the end of the intro is a bit awkward. How about something like: "With the discovery of gold in 1901, Candle Creek's reputation as a top gold-yielding site was fixed." ?
"History" should be first section? Or, changed to "Mining history?"
In "Geography" section: "making its movement more difficult," instead to: "negatively affecting the stream's/its flow"?

These points attended-to or decided-upon: thumbs-up from me! Hope I've helped. Penwatchdog (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just revisited this(these) article(s) while waiting on line with my Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations DYK nom below. I'd say all concerns here have been covered, and I'd give it two-thumbs-up, BUT... It just struck me, neither of these double-noms meet the 1,500 quota. It doesn't seem they'd even add up to that together. Now, mind you, I also happened to uncover several other related articles by the same contributors which made it through to Main Page DYK well-under 1,500... am I missing some loopholes, or...?

This matter being successfully judged by the proper authorities, this nom still has my thumbs-up otherwise, and here's my final ALT hook suggestion:

... that Alaska's Candle Creek, a tributary of Kiwalik River, derived its name from the ice-covered willow twigs along its banks resembling candles? Penwatchdog (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's come to my attention, being inexperienced with DYK and prose-counts, that spaces are also counted. That being the case, I'll give this a green light, along with apologies to the authors! I'll have to learn the ropes for such procedures! Penwatchdog (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Kiwalik River is only at about 630 characters of original material, well short of the about 2250 needed to meet 5x expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there going to be any attempt to add more original material to Kiwalik River, or should this become a single nomination of Candle Creek? If the latter, which hooks would you like to have considered? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset. I will try to add to Kiwalik River in the next three days. Otherwise, I will propose an alt hook.--Nvvchar. 12:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nvv has given Kiwalik River some attention; I think its issues have been sorted out. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good to go. Nikkimaria (talk)