- 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 Yoninah (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Carp Hills
Heron rookery in the Carp Hills
- ... that because of its pristine rugged nature the Carp Hills (pictured) in western Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, are called an "ecological jewel"? Source: Ref 3: "ecological jewel"; Ref 4 describes it as pristine.
Created by P199 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC).
- @P199: I'll review this one. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- There are a couple small phrases that can be reworded, otherwise it's fine.
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems: - You don't need to put the (Ontario, Canada) in parentheses. Just say "Ottawa, Ontario, Canada".
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- Yes, but you did three articles' worth of reviews, so your next two DYK noms don't need another QPQ.
Overall: 
epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Hook updated as per your suggestion. As for plagiarism, the tool finds some word combinations that are the same, including common terms (like "village of Carp" and "city of Ottawa", etc.), but not entire copied sentences. Is that really plagiarism? Let me know if what specifically you want me to rephrase. As for the QPQ, the 3 articles are bundled in 1 DYK, not really possible to review only 1. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @P199: The copyvios being referred to, were instances such as
- "and much of southeastern Ontario, including mature deciduous and mixed upland forest and mixed and coniferous lowland forest"
- "including two populations of a provincially rare species and substantial populations of several regionally rare"
- These aren't major issues, since it might be hard to reword these fragments. If you can't rephrase these, let me know and i will approve.In regards to the QPQ: I was saying that your next 2 nominations don't need additional QPQ credit. You may reuse the review two more times. That's not a bad thing, quite the opposite. epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Slight rewording/rephrasing done, but I can't significantly change "mature deciduous and mixed upland forest and mixed and coniferous lowland forest" without changing its meaning. Hopefully this suffices. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this looks good. I can't see a way to reword these either, since these are just specialized terms for specific parts of the landscape. epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)