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 SL93 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Current plan to make the Sabinoso Wilderness publicly accessible
... that the Sabinoso Wilderness is 16,030 acres of federally protected land in Arizona that is inaccessible to the public, because it is completely surrounded by privately owned property? Source:Albuquerque Journal, US DOI BLM
ALT1:... that the 16,030 acres of federal land in Arizona's Sabinoso Wilderness is inaccessible without trespassing, because it is entirely enclosed in privately owned property?
ALT2:... that the Sabinoso Wilderness is 16,030 acres of federally protected land in New Mexico that is inaccessible to the public, because it is completely surrounded by privately owned property?
ALT3:... that the 16,030 acres of federal land in New Mexico's Sabinoso Wilderness is inaccessible without trespassing, because it is entirely enclosed in privately owned property?
@Timothyjosephwood: As Smallchief mentioned, there are problems with the hook, namely that the wilderness is in NM rather than AZ. So how about ALT2 and ALT3, which I have posted above? Personally, I prefer ALT3 over ALT2. Also, just so we are clear on this revision to the hook, I will need to strike ALT0 and ALT1. epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hah. Yeah. That's a silly mistake on my part. TimothyJosephWood 09:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Also yes, I think I prefer 3 as well. It is in fact accessible, just not "technically legally accessible," at least not without a helicopter, which for all that's worth is as good as inaccessible, at least from the perspective of the BLM. TimothyJosephWood 12:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. When this review is over and any issues are resolved, I'll ask that ALT3 be the hook that is submitted. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Under "Description": The Sabinoso Wilderness area consists of canyons and steep-sided mesas with elevations ranging from 4,250 feet (1,300 m) to 6,150 feet (1,870 m). The mesa tops are grassland while the canyon walls support a pinyon pine and juniper woodland with scattered groves of ponderosa pine. The area is semi-arid receiving 14 inches (360 mm) to 18 inches (460 mm) precipitation annually.
Under "Mineral resources" They concluded that "no identified mineral resources were found in the study area." While they identified some occurrences of uranium associated with the Chinle Formation, the deposits were too small, scattered and low-grade to constitute a viable resources for uranium. I think this is sourced to reference 13, "Mineral Resources of the Sabinoso Wilderness Study Area, San Miguel County, New Mexico", but either the reference has to be moved to the end of the paragraph, or duplicated with the <ref name="reference"></ref> syntax.
The tone of the article is neutral enough, with no obvious bias. epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I realized that the first paragraph under "Legislative history" doesn't have a direct source: There were multiple failed legislative attempts to establish the Sabinoso Wilderness, both as an individual bill as well as part of a larger bill, prior to the eventual success in 2009 as part of an omnibus bill. But the following paragraphs support this statement, and since it's not a contentious statement or a quotation, I'll let it pass (though I recommend you add a ref-name). Otherwise, ALT3 is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
epicgenius: I have moved the paragraph to the lead and added to the lead somewhat to better summarize the contents of the article. Thanks for your review. It has undoubtedly contributed to article improvement. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Glad to help. The nomination meets the DYK criteria now and is good to go. Nice work on your first DYK nom. epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
epicgenius, you have still not formally approved this nomination; your review still has a non-tick status. Please add a tick icon if this is indeed ready for promotion. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I did the tick. Approved. epicgenius (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Done TimothyJosephWood 19:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Approved. epicgenius (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)