Talk:Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve

Latest comment: 3 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

edit
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 (talk00:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Created by Declangi (talk) and Chipmunkdavis (talk). Nominated by Chipmunkdavis (talk) at 11:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

  • Review of Tenompok Forest Reserve: new enough, long enough, well-sourced, neutrally written, no copyvio detected by Earwig's tool. The article includes inline citations supporting the individual hook, which is interesting. I'm not sure about the combined hook though — the article doesn't make it seem like it's being threatened by any of the three listed examples? The hook might be referring to Class 1 forests in general rather than this specific one, but I had just expected to see it.
  • Review of Tawai Forest Reserve: new enough, long enough, well-sourced, neutrally written, no copyvio detected by Earwig's tool. The article includes inline citations supporting both the individual hook, which is interesting (and a bit sad), and the combined hook.
  • Review of Binsuluk Forest Reserve: new enough, long enough, well-sourced, neutrally written, no copyvio detected by Earwig's tool. I copyedited the individual hook slightly ("peat" in lowercase and pluralized "forest", hope that's fine). The article includes inline citations supporting both the individual hook, which is interesting, and the combined hook.
  • Review of Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve: new enough, long enough, well-sourced, neutrally written, no copyvio detected by Earwig's tool. The article includes inline citations supporting both the individual hook and the combined hook. However, I'm not really sure if the fact that a forest was used for logging is interesting. How about something about the fact that none of the floral species in a Sabah forest are endemic to Sabah?
  •   General comments: Four QPQs have been done. Combined hook length is acceptable per WP:DYKSG C3. @Chipmunkdavis: Do you have a personal preference for the combined hook versus individual ones? I think the individual ones are more interesting and would get each of them more attention, but also understand if you want them to run together, and am fine approving either after the few minor questions above are resolved. DanCherek (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi DanCherek, no strong preference, just thought I'd provide a bundled option as this is easier for DYK promoters, and it highlights issues that continue to plague Sabah's forests. If you feel the individual ones are more interesting (or a combination where some are removed from the multi-hook and others are kept), I welcome that second opinion. On the individual points, it is true Tenompok fairs a bit better than most, it probably benefits from the aura of nearby Kinabalu Park and by being relatively close to the state capital. I added a small bit to explain the logging there is local only. On Ulu Telupid, my interest in the hook is that the forest reserve is essentially a recovery effort. Note the 40% of the intact forest is in the upland areas, ie. the areas that are harder to access to log etc., which provides some indication as to the area's former history. Would there be a way to word it that is more interesting? Eg. "...that due to logging and illegal agricultural use, old growth forests remain only in the upland and interior areas of the Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve?" I think the endemism data may be an artefact of limited research, rather than an actual "fact", so to speak. CMD (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks, Tenompok looks good now. And what you said about Ulu Telupid makes sense. I think the 40% figure is quite striking, how about something like the following?
    • Feel free to refine if you like it (or reject if you don't), and it would need an inline citation for DYK. DanCherek (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • No problem with that one. Article tweaked using source saying "This portion is mainly due to illegal logging activities, fire and shifting cultivation (even permanent farms)". CMD (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
        •   Okay great! This is good to go. My note to the promoter(s): I like the individual hooks a little more, but no objection from me if you decide to promote the combined one. If you go with the individual ones, I suggest you strike them out one-by-one as you promote them (and carefully copy over the relevant DYKmake credits), and do not mark this as passed until the fourth and final hook is promoted. DanCherek (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply