Template:Did you know nominations/Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act

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 Allen3 ^talk 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act edit

(

)

... originally proposed hook, now struck out (see below) was: ~~... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants it back?~~

ALT1: ~~... that the US State of Utah intends to take back 31,200,000 acres (12,600,000 ha) of land from the Federal government on 31 December 2014?~~
ALT2: ~~... that the US State of Utah intends to legally assert control over 31,200,000 acres (12,600,000 ha) of land from the Federal government on 31 December 2014?~~
ALT3: ~~... that the US State of Utah intends to take back over 31 million acres of land from the US Federal government on 31 December 2014?~~

Created by N2e (talk). Self nominated at 04:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

ALT4: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants what they were promised? revision of original hook added by N2e (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants some o' dat? revised ALT hook added by N2e (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT6: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants some of that? revised ALT hook added by N2e (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT7: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants some back? revised ALT hook added by N2e (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT8: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants to get some o' dat? revised ALT hook added by N2e (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT9: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants to get some of that? revised ALT hook added by N2e (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT10: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah has initiated a multi-year process to assert control over a major part of it? revised ALT hook added by N2e (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT11: ... that 64% of Utah is Federal land and Utah wants it? revised ALT hook added by N2e (N2e (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work, especially in that it makes it sound this is actually going to happen. EEng (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that is still true any longer. Have attempted to explicate, per sources, that rather long-term multi-step process that the State of Utah is following here. But by all means, check it out yourself, and edit it or comment on the article Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, "take back" may be inaccurate, as the federal government may have owned the land before Utah was a state. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. The hook that had "take back" in it has been removed, and several hooks added that merely describe the dispute and Utah asserting that they were promised certain lands in the Utah Enabling Act of the Federal government. N2e (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest something along the lines of "passed a bill staking legal claim," which might be a trifle dull, but sticks to the facts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The words pretends or purports might help here too, as in "The bill purports to do such and such". EEng (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved the nomination to December 7, the date of creation. Fortunately, the nomination is within seven-day limit. George Ho (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've struck all three ALT hooks as they're now in the past, and the original hook because of Antony-22's objections. It sounds like there are issues with the article as well that need to be addressed, as well as a need for at least one new hook, before the nomination can proceed. Since the December 31 deadline has passed, the article should at least make mention of the current status of these lands: any 2015 actions taken by the state or by the feds. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to add some additional hook candidates, per the request of BlueMoonset on 8 Jan 2015.

However, it appears that several who left comment above may want to discuss the content of the article itself, or whether the statements made in prose within the article are supported by sources. I believe they are. And they have withstood critical review in the article space for over a month now. Seems to me that we should be discussing this on the article Talk page, not here; so I will be happy to respond to specific issues brought up on that Talk page, on that Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Full review needed now that new hooks have been proposed; issues raised before should be considered as part of it. (I moved the "replacement" original hook to the beginning of the new ALTs, which have been renumbered, and added "?" to the end of all the new hooks, and a missing "wants" in what is now ALT7.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset, for helping clean up a few details today, and for your work shepherding this through the DYK process in the first place. I agree that a full review is needed, since the hooks were changed, for the reasons articulated above. N2e (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This article was new enough when nominated some time ago and is long enough. Going for ALT11 as the best option (you can't have back what has not previously been in your posession) and have struck the others. The article is neutral and I found no copyright issues with the sources I could access. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)