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.
... that after many years of farming crops, Russ Island was deliberately flooded for farming salt? Source: URS Corporation (October 2011). "Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Land Management Plan". California Department of Fish and Game. Retrieved 26 February 2021.
Overall: Nice work. Complete sentences technically aren't a DYK stipulation, so I'll let that pass, but the sentence should be fixed sooner or later. There's an incomplete sentence: Bounded by Napa River, China Slough and Devil's Slough.[22]Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Fixed that part and expanded the rest of the article some, as well (I did this a few days ago but forgot to mention it here and ping you). jp×g 08:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: was the island flooded? the article says there were plans and proposals to flood it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 08:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Leaving a note so I remember to get to this tomorrow. jp×g 13:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Leslie Salt was using it as an evaporation pond for quite some time. What I know is they bought it in 1952-53, planned to have it in operation for salt harvesting by 1958... and were still using it in 1991. If they were still using it in 1991, it follows logically that they started using it at some point before, but I don't have an exact date for that. This source ("Area History". California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021-11-01.) says that they were converted at some point in the 1950s, but not more than that. jp×g 03:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I added a little clarifying note to this effect, let me know what you think. jp×g 03:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Epicgenius, theleekycauldron, have the issues that caused this nom to be pulled from prep been addressed? It can't be repromoted without a confirmation of this and also a new tick. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I hereby confirm the above issues are addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Nice work. Complete sentences technically aren't a DYK stipulation, so I'll let that pass, but the sentence should be fixed sooner or later. There's an incomplete sentence: 
marking for return WP:DYKN theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 18:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I hereby confirm the above issues are addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)