Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Burundi

The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 13:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wildlife of Burundi edit

(

)

~~... that Burundi's wildlife protection (protected area pictured) includes a 2005 ban on the harvesting of natural Christmas trees in an effort to slow deforestation?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Get Reading festival

5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC).

Article long enough, well sourced, and expanded fivefold within the timeframe. However, the "Environment" section contains very close paraphrasing of this source, and will have to be rewritten. Hook fact is verified (not sure how reliable that source is, but this BBC report backs it up), but doesn't quite make sense – Christmas trees aren't a species of tree that can be harvested. It should simply read "a ban on natural Christmas trees". DoctorKubla (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've c/e that section of the article. Here is ALT1: ... that Burundi's wildlife protection (protected area pictured) includes a 2005 ban on natural Christmas trees? Also, here is ALT2: ... that the Bururi long-fingered frog, believed to be extinct, was rediscovered in 2011 amidst the wildlife of Burundi? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to the article didn't really address the close paraphrasing issue. I've rewritten the section myself, but now it needs to be checked by a new reviewer. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Per User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, there are multiple formatting issues with the Harvrefs. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirming all were fixed. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Needs a new reviewer to check the rewritten section and to review the two ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I assume the article was written by a non-native speaker on English as it has a lot of strange\awkward phrasing. As such, it could really use a good copyedit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I've given the article a c/e. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Still needs a new reviewer to recheck the rewritten section and the phrasing throughout, and to review the two ALT hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed the rewritten Environment section; read phrasing throughout as "passable" though could be smoothed - some sections are heavy due to hectares/acres/metres,etc data; and reviewed the ALT hooks, as per BlueMoonset. Both ALT hooks have in-line citations. It seems ALT 2 offers readers the intrigue of re-discovered species, so that's my choice for hook.--Meghaninmotion (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)