Talk:Kopka River

A fact from Kopka River appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 December 2022, and was viewed approximately 5,612 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although the provincial park surrounding the Kopka River had not been thoroughly investigated, the potential for archaeological sites was considered to be high?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kopka River.

Wikipedia

Canada: Ontario / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that although the Kopka River in northern Ontario, Canada, is an official canoe route, its rapids and portages are unmarked? Source: Ref #5 Kopka River Provincial Park Interim. Management Statement: "The entire length of the waterway is an official M.N.R. canoe route." - Ref #6: "Rapids, portages and campsites are not marked—as in most of Canada, you’re on your own."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Birding in New York City and Template:Did you know nominations/Meal deal

Created by P199 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - No offense, but this hook is quite boring

QPQ: Done.

Overall: – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: ALT0 is probably one of the most boring hooks I've seen on here, and it doesn't necessarily follow that an official rafting course would have markings. While I don't see much interesting in the article as it stands, perhaps this

ALT1: ... that the mouth of Ontario's Kopka River empties into a lake and is crossed by a highway?

But even that isn't cited in the source given, unless 527 is the "haul road". However, the MNR source does have information, not yet in the article, that leads to the even more interesting conclusion of

ALT2: ... that although the area surrounding Kopka River hadn't been thoroughly investigated, the potential for archaeology in it was "considered high"?

Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I struck ALT1; it's even less remarkable. I support ALT2 in the tweaked version below (now added to the article), but I much rather prefer ALT3:

ALT2a: ... that although the provincial park surrounding the Kopka River hadn't been thoroughly investigated, the potential for archaeological sites in it was considered high?

ALT3: ... that in 2005 a canoeist died on Ontario's Kopka River while running strong rapids?

Unfortunately, a death from a canoeing accident is notable, but no need to draw attention to the person by name on the frontpage. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Please review ALT2a or ALT3 above. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: Perhaps ALT3 might be hookier if the decedent's relation to Gary Ferguson were disclosed, but I agree that BLP concerns prevail here and approve ALT3 as is. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: seems like you forgot to add a tick – just as well, because I'm not really sure about ALT3. Do we really want to run a hook that gets its main source of interestingness from someone dying? Plus, accidents happen all the time, particularly on rapids, so this seems rather routine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't recognize the importance of the tick, so my apologies there. As for the hook itself, as much I like to say that I don't consider death off-limits when it's interesting I did have some second thoughts on its taste myself. As for the interest factor of the hook, I don't like to fail DYKs solely because there's not much to say on a topic (I'm making quite a lot of hopefully future Four Awards myself and would hate to have some fail because of it) but I think the hook is one of the more interesting parts of the river. Perhaps ALT2a is best? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, deaths on rapids do not "happen all the time" and are rather notable within the paddling community. I prefer it because it is succinct and tells you that the river is dangerous, which is more hooky than the alternatives. But I understand if it is considered too macabre for DYK. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent involvement anymore from User:John M Wolfson or user:theleekycauldron. Someone else willing to approve ALT2a or ALT3? Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P199:

personally I'm going to approve hooks alt2a and alt3 as those sound somewhat interesting to me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]