Template:Did you know nominations/John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 05:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act[edit]

Created by Reywas92 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

  •  Working GMGtalk 12:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: New enough, long enough, copyvio hits are lengthy proper nouns or text from the bill itself, which is public domain. Only issue I'm seeing is that the hook doesn't seem to match the source. The source says "more than one million" or "1.3 million" but not "more than 1.3 million". It also indicates three national monuments, rather than five. GMGtalk 15:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This source includes the "more than" and the five monuments. Two are not administered by the NPS which is what the NYT article has. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay. That covers "more than" but says establishing four new national monuments. GMGtalk 18:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Saint Francis Dam Disaster National Monument, Jurassic National Monument, Medgar and Myrlie Evers Home National Monument, and Mill Springs Battlefield National Monument are entirely new, and Aleutian Islands World War II National Monument and Tule Lake National Monument are newly made from World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument, for five net new monuments. I changed it to say four if it's easier to exclude the last ones. Reywas92Talk 19:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Works for me. GMGtalk 19:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This source uses the same five as in the map on the WaPo article; the issue is that Camp Nelson is newly designated by Congress with a new name, though it's been under preparation as a new NPS site since it was originally named a monument last October, so still a newly established monument in all practical sense and just a matter of semantics. Reywas92Talk 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh okay. That's fine. As long as we have a reliable source that backs up the five number. As you say, they seem to be using somewhat different metrics for their count. Might not be a bad idea to put a note about the differences in a footnote in the article for clarity maybe. GMGtalk 19:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)