Template:Did you know nominations/Ochlockonee River State Park

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) 06:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ochlockonee River State Park edit

(

)

Picnic area at Ochlockonee River State Park

... that mutant squirrels and cat-faced trees can be found in Ochlockonee River State Park (pictured)?
"white squirrels in the campground" (Molloy p. 33.), "white squirrels are a genetic mutation of the common gray squirrel." [1], "as you look through the park, look for what are called "cat-face" trees...where the bark was stripped and the resin or pitch was allowed to seep...to be made into turpentine" (Cuhaj p. 48)

Reviewed: Gordon Coleman

5x expanded by The Bushranger (talk). Self-nominated at 05:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC).

This is long enough, has good footnotes, NPoV, and so on. It's also greatly expanded, but only about 350% instead of the 500% required, but it had no references until he improved it and added many, so that still counts, right? — Kaz (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kazvorpal: Thanks for the review. On size: before I started expansion, it was 489 characters; a 5x expansion would be 2445 characters and it is now at ~~2606~~2703 characters. I'm not sure why DYKcheck is saying it isn't, especially since last night it was correctly showing it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I found the problem: the pre-expansion size was 489 characters, but for some reason DYKcheck is counting back to this diff in 2012 which also went 'up' from 489 characters but was later reverted as vandalism. I'm not sure why it would correctly display last night but not now, but <shrug>. Anyway it is 5x+ expanded within the last seven (well, one!) days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And having wordsmithed to 2792 characters, DYKcheck decided to start working correctly... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kazvorpal: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. So far you have verified length and neutrality. Please include in your review checks for newness, inline cite for the hook fact(s), close paraphrasing, and QPQ review. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The review was somewhat deficient but my checks show that the DYK criteria are met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)