Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Rock State Natural Area
- 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 10:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Gibraltar Rock State Natural Area edit
- ... that a landscape architect was a major proponent of the preservation of the area that is now known as the Gibraltar Rock State Natural Area?
- Reviewed: Eulis Atjih
Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk), Thine Antique Pen (talk). Nominated by LauraHale (talk) at 21:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
-
The article was a little confusing when I first read it, because I kept wondering what a natural area was. There was no mention of Gibraltar Rock until the end of the second paragraph and none of butte until the fifth paragraph. And there was no reference to the Wisconsin State Natural Areas Program at all. Gibraltar Rock was designated a State Natural Area (SNA) by the Wisconsin State Natural Areas Program in 1969. Also, the sources that you've included indicate that plans are in motion to extend the Ice Age Trail to Gibraltar Rock, but there's no suggestion that it has occurred yet. The artist van Ness primarily painted images from Gibraltar Rock, not of Gibraltar Rock, at least based on the source. Similarly, the photo that you included is of Leather Leaf Bog which is visible from Gibraltar Rock, and apparently south of the SNA. I would eliminate it, and look for another. Gibraltar Rock needs to assume much more importance in the article. Date and length are fine. No copy vios. As usual, every sentence is meticulously sourced. I tweaked the hook, which is cited, and added more links in article. Anne (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Needs a new review now that major revisions have been done. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Article is big enough, free of Gibraltar restrictions, new enough, cited enough. No plagiarism found, and is neutral. Hook is formatted OK, not completely boring, and is cited. Hook is confirmed on page 92 of the book online at Google books. Hook is short enough at 140 chars. QPQ was done. Good to go! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
