Talk:Kaʻelepulu Pond
 | A fact from Kaʻelepulu Pond appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 June 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
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 Desertarun (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
( )
* ... that the United States Army Corps of Engineers chose not to assert the public's right to access Kaʻelepulu Pond after the United States Supreme Court ruled that it did not apply to a similar pond nearby? Source: The Honolulu Advertiser, "Corps Awaits Ruling on Kaelepulu Pond"
- ALT1:... that Kaʻelepulu Pond, formerly a 200- to 400-acre Hawaiian fish pond, is now about 95 acres and polluted after having been partially filled in for a housing development? Source: First part here on the first page, second part here about halfway down
- Reviewed: Ester Wajcblum
Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC).
- Article:
The article is new (created within the past 7 days of nomination) and long enough. The article has appropriate inline citations. I do not detect any COPYVIO with Earwig's. - Hook:
for the default hook; the character count exceeds 200 characters (203 characters including space and question mark). for ALT1. The hook is within 200 characters, interesting to the general audience, and is neutral. The sources also check out. I like ALT1 more as well. - QPQ:
- Overall:
An interesting article and hook concerning pollution. Good to go for ALT1. 
Also, I noticed that the article was created on 28 May 2021 in the Revision History but the DYK nomination is listed in the 29 May section. Perhaps the nomination can be moved to the 28 May section? I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding.--Karto1 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Karto1, thanks for the review and for pointing out those issues! I think both were caused by my use of the DYK-helper tool, although itʻs my fault for not double-checking. Iʻve struck ALT0, ALT1 is approved thanks to you, and the nomination has been moved to the proper date header at WP:DYKNA. ezlevtlk/ctrbs 17:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Article:
