Template:Did you know nominations/Devils Hole pupfish

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Devils Hole pupfish

(

)

Devils Hole pupfish males

... that the entire Devils Hole pupfish species is down to less than 200 individuals? Source: "The official result of the recent survey, 136 observable pupfish, is the highest count recorded during the springtime since 2003"
- ALT1:... that a court case about the Devils Hole pupfish went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States? Source: "The circuit court decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, on 7 June 1976, upheld the permanent injunciton, returned the allowable water level to that originally set by the district court, and directed the district court to review the facts and establish a final minimum water level that would tend to ensure survival of the pupfish?"
- ALT2:... that in a battle over water rights for the Devils Hole pupfish, a county commissioner printed "Kill the Pupfish" bumper stickers, and a newspaper editor encouraged poisoning them? Source: "A Pahrump newspaper editor even threatened to throw the pesticide Rotenone into the sunken cave to “make the pupfish a moot point"; "...Rudd was the Nye County commissioner who ordered up those infamous "Kill the Pupfish" bumper stickers at the height of the Devils Hole pupfish controversy"

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shailaja Acharya

Improved to Good Article status by Enwebb (talk). Self-nominated at 14:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC).

Article promoted to good article status 8 December 2019. Prose size (text only): 27433 characters (4477 words) "readable prose size". Meets core policies and guidelines, is neutral, cites sources with inline citations. QPQ done. Image is free, used in the article, and shows up well at small size

All three hooks are short enough and well-formatted. All three are interesting to a broad audience and cited with inline citations in the article. The main hook and ALT1 are both accurate and neutral and do not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people. ALT2 could be negative depending on your point of view, but seem to be accurate representations.

Unfortunately is not free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations, or plagiarism. This should be corrected. --Nessie (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL, existing in the article since before I edited it, but I assumed it was fine to leave it since it is in the public domain as a work of the US Federal government? Enwebb (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: I'm sure it was pre-existing. Looks like you are mostly correct, according to Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources. However, the copied text needs {{Citation-attribution}} or {{NPS.Gov}}. --Nessie (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL I had Template:PD-notice that was just replaced by Template:NPS, but the effect is largely the same. The citation in question (27) has "This article incorporates public domain material...." at the beginning. Enwebb (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: Ah, I hadn't seen that template. For some reason I thought it would display in the body. However, that entire paragraph preceding your edit is entirely from the NPS source. It's the first paragraph in the In the wild subsection. It currently only uses the NPS citation for the last sentence. Personally I think it'd be easier to rewrite it. What do you think? Is it clear that the notice/citation applies to the entire paragraph? --Nessie (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL alright, that paragraph is mostly rewritten, with some more duplication of the NPS reference for good measure. Hopefully that suffices. Enwebb (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: you are now clear for takeoff. Good work. —Nessie (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)