Template:Did you know nominations/Pituamkek National Park Reserve
- 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 Rjjiii talk 00:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pituamkek National Park Reserve
- ... that Pituamkek National Park Reserve is Canada's newest national park, protecting a chain of barrier islands used for fishing and hunting by the Mi'kmaq for 4,000 years?
- Source: Kristmanson, Helen. "Pitawelkek: A 2000-Year-Old Archaeological Site in Malpeque Bay". Island Magazine (84). PEI Museum & Heritage Foundation: 2–14 – via Island Archives, University of Prince Edward Island.
- Reviewed: ...Well, Better Than the Alternative
- Comment: PEIsquirrel is my alt. I don't know why the template is saying 0 past nominations (maybe I used my alt? I have 5 according to my user page) but QPQ should be required. I'll take care of that shortly.
Moved to mainspace by Ivanvector (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
QPQ: 
- Not done
Overall: 
New enough, long enough, sourced and neutral, Earwig detects no copyvio issues other than long names and quoted passages, the hook is interesting. I am awaiting the QPQ as mentioned by the nominator. Ivanvector I want to clarify with you the value of "4,000 years" mentioned in the hook. I see a value of 3000 years as mentioned by "suggest the possible presence of a drowned site dating within the Woodland Period (which spans from about 3000 years ago to the recent historic period)." but I'm not sure whether the "to the recent historic period" is inclusive of an additional thousand years or not, I am not familiar with the terminology enough to make my own determination. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 and Ornithoptera: I appreciate the pings. Very busy at work today and for the next few, but I will get to this. Regarding "4,000 years", one of the sources refers to human habitation on the islands from 2,000 BC, but it's not this source. I'll have to find it again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Note that per a recent rule change, a QPQ should have been provided at the time of the nomination. Please provide one as soon as possible, as the nomination may be closed without further warning unless a QPQ is given. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: thanks, I was not aware of that. If we're going to be bureaucratic about things, the rules also suggest that previously completed QPQs can be credited towards a future nomination requiring one, and I have done QPQs with three or four of my past five nominations when none were required. Nonetheless, I have started to review ...Well, Better Than the Alternative. I will check on the sourcing for the time period this evening, and update accordingly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ornithoptera: the source for 4,000 years is "First Look at the Proposed Pituamkek National Park Reserve" in National Parks Explorer, reference #6 in the article, which reads "These shores and forests have been home to the Mi’kmaq people for more than 4,000 years [...] ." I've added an additional inline citation. I interpreted "the recent historic period" as meaning the time period right up to European contact and the Acadian expulsion in the 18th century, and the section you're referring to I believe describes the estimated age of that particular drowned site or to the Pitawelkek site described in the source, not to the whole island chain. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify the rule, it just means that a QPQ should have been provided at the time of making the nomination, if it is a review that was done previously. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me with the QPQ. I can verify that the new source for 4000 years explicitly mentions the date mentioned in the hook. For future reference, it might be ideal to not assume "the recent historic period" based on what you might assume, rather, finding a source that can attest to it within a relevant source is the safest way to go. The phrase can be interpreted in a variety of ways and would not serve as a strong source for this context. Thank you for your time Ivanvector, wonderful work on the article regardless. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify the rule, it just means that a QPQ should have been provided at the time of making the nomination, if it is a review that was done previously. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Note that per a recent rule change, a QPQ should have been provided at the time of the nomination. Please provide one as soon as possible, as the nomination may be closed without further warning unless a QPQ is given. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
