Template:Did you know nominations/Sabinoso Wilderness

From blackwiki
< Template:Did you know nominations
Revision as of 06:59, 29 March 2017 by imported>SL93 (promote to prep 3)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 SL93 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sabinoso Wilderness

Current plan to make the Sabinoso Wilderness publicly accessible
Current plan to make the Sabinoso Wilderness publicly accessible
  • ... that the Sabinoso Wilderness is 16,030 acres of federally protected land in Arizona that is inaccessible to the public, because it is completely surrounded by privately owned property? Source:Albuquerque Journal, US DOI BLM
    • ALT1:... that the 16,030 acres of federal land in Arizona's Sabinoso Wilderness is inaccessible without trespassing, because it is entirely enclosed in privately owned property?
    • ALT2:... that the Sabinoso Wilderness is 16,030 acres of federally protected land in New Mexico that is inaccessible to the public, because it is completely surrounded by privately owned property?
    • ALT3:... that the 16,030 acres of federal land in New Mexico's Sabinoso Wilderness is inaccessible without trespassing, because it is entirely enclosed in privately owned property?

Created by Timothyjosephwood (talk) and Smallchief (talk). Nominated by Timothyjosephwood (talk) at 18:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Sabinoso is in New Mexico, not in Arizona. Smallchief (talk 01:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC):

Lua error: expandTemplate: template "y" does not exist.

  • Template:Re As Template:U mentioned, there are problems with the hook, namely that the wilderness is in NM rather than AZ. So how about ALT2 and ALT3, which I have posted above? Personally, I prefer ALT3 over ALT2. Also, just so we are clear on this revision to the hook, I will need to strike ALT0 and ALT1. epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hah. Yeah. That's a silly mistake on my part. TimothyJosephWood 09:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Also yes, I think I prefer 3 as well. It is in fact accessible, just not "technically legally accessible," at least not without a helicopter, which for all that's worth is as good as inaccessible, at least from the perspective of the BLM. TimothyJosephWood 12:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. When this review is over and any issues are resolved, I'll ask that ALT3 be the hook that is submitted. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Template:Re There are two statements without any sources:
    Under "Description": Template:Tq
    Under "Mineral resources" Template:Tq I think this is sourced to reference 13, "Mineral Resources of the Sabinoso Wilderness Study Area, San Miguel County, New Mexico", but either the reference has to be moved to the end of the paragraph, or duplicated with the <ref name="reference"></ref> syntax.
  • The tone of the article is neutral enough, with no obvious bias. epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done TimothyJosephWood 19:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Re I realized that the first paragraph under "Legislative history" doesn't have a direct source: Template:Tq But the following paragraphs support this statement, and since it's not a contentious statement or a quotation, I'll let it pass (though I recommend you add a ref-name). Otherwise, ALT3 is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
epicgenius: I have moved the paragraph to the lead and added to the lead somewhat to better summarize the contents of the article. Thanks for your review. It has undoubtedly contributed to article improvement. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Re Glad to help. The nomination meets the DYK criteria now and is good to go. Nice work on your first DYK nom. epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • epicgenius, you have still not formally approved this nomination; your review still has a non-tick status. Please add a tick icon if this is indeed ready for promotion. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I did the tick. Symbol confirmed.svg Approved. epicgenius (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)