- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Carmel Bay
edit
- ... that about 17 square miles (4,400 ha) of underwater parks are located beneath the waters in and around California's Carmel Bay (pictured)?
Created/expanded by 24dot (talk). Self nom at 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Only one paragraph in the article is referenced; each should have at least one. Also, any info in the lead that is not elsewhere in the article should be referenced. Chris857 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for input; FIXED per this edit. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs full review. Chris857 (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
My review found multiple issues:
- Article is long enough, but it was started on 6 July, about 10 days before it was nominated. That's outside our usual time limits.
- The prose portion of the "Climate" section of the article is still uncited. (There is a footnote identifying the source for the data in the table, but it clearly isn't the source for the whole section, and anyway the reader cannot easily tell whether that is the same source used for the prose.)
- The hook fact is not supported by sources. Specifically, the source cited for the "Marine protected areas" section of the article doesn't seem to include any information on the sizes of the four protected areas.
- I wanted to see more information on the protected areas designation and meaning of their "protection". I added the information that these are state designations and I named the law under which such areas are designated, but if this is featured in the hook, readers may expect a bit more information on topics like why and when they were designated and on the rules/restriction that apply.
- I've not yet found evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, but then again, I haven't yet looked at any sources that have enough prose to plagiarize. The image is used in the article and the image license is good. --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Further clarification: The second and third bullets in my review above are the ones that need to be fixed before this can go to DYK. For a new DYK contributor, we can let the timing issue (the first bullet) slide. The last bullet is merely a "would be nice." --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
