Template:Did you know nominations/Nagagamisis Provincial Park
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nagagamisis Provincial Park
- ... that although Nagagamisis Provincial Park (in Ontario, Canada) has never been logged, its forests have been disturbed by large wildfires? Source: Ref. #3 - Nagagamisis Provincial Park Master Plan
ALT1: ... that complete burns of Nagagamisis Provincial Park (in Ontario, Canada) have resulted in even-aged tree stands and a relatively simple vegetation pattern?Source: Ref. #3 - Nagagamisis Provincial Park Master Plan- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Agri-Expo
Created by P199 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nagagamisis Provincial Park; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Lovely little article User:P199. First hook okay, but not super interesting. Unconvinced of sourcing for the second. New article of sufficient length, QPQ has been done, image licensing okay, and the source supports the statement. However, the source was published in 1980, and I'm not sure if the park still has this simple vegetation pattern and even-aged trees. There have been a lot of wildfires in recent years in Canada, and if a part of the park burned again, that would result in a mix of tree ages. Either rewrite with a more recent source, or shorten (and give context in the article). Shorter hooks are often more interesting. What about:
* ALT2 ... that Nagagamisis Provincial Park (in Ontario, Canada) burned down completely in the early 20th century?
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Femke: thank you for your insightful review. Yes, because the source is old now, I added the date to the statement in the article for context (and struck ALT1). As for ALT2, I feel it is a bit too succinct and gives the wrong impression: as if the area was already a park in the early 20th century. Moreover, the fact that it never was logged is actually significant (for those knowing that little original forest remains in Ontario). The original hook thereby gives an interesting contrast IMO (never logged but no original forest anyway). So my preference is still for the original hook... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Great. I still think ALT0 is not as interesting as could be.. Can you rephrase to make it more so? Or what do you think of ALT2b?
- 'ALT2b ... that the forest of Nagagamisis Provincial Park (in Ontario, Canada) burned down completely in the early 20th century? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Femke: I know that what is considered "interesting" is very personal, but I don't think a hook that only says it burnt down is interesting to most people IMO; huge forest fires are not uncommon. OK, let's try a new direction. What about:
- ALT3: ... that the Nagagamisis Provincial Park (in Ontario, Canada) has been enlarged 4 times and once reduced in size?
I like this hook but if the hook rules are rigidly applied, then it might not qualify, because the sources don't specifically mention "4 times" - on the other hand, it is plainly obvious from just counting, so it is not synthesis.-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Femke: I know that what is considered "interesting" is very personal, but I don't think a hook that only says it burnt down is interesting to most people IMO; huge forest fires are not uncommon. OK, let's try a new direction. What about:
- Nevermind ALT3. Let's do this:
- ALT4: ... that the Nagagamisis Provincial Park (in Ontario, Canada) was reduced in size in 1958 but enlarged in 1963, 1970, 1978, and again in 2005?
- Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that interesting is in the eye of the beholder. Routine calculations are not WP:OR per WP:CALC, so that's fine. I'll okay the first hook, ALT2b, and ALT3 and ALT4.. I wonder if we can say something truly interesting about culturally modified trees, which is a cool word I just discovered in this source on the park. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind ALT3. Let's do this:
