Template:Did you know nominations/Goodwin Heart Pine

Goodwin Heart Pine
Created/expanded by Springmata (talk). Nominated by Northamerica1000 (talk) at 08:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the company Goodwin Heart Pine harvests sunken logs from rivers for lumber production that loggers felled in the 1800s, where they initially sank because of their high resin content?


 * You should remove the second sentence from your hook. Anne (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the nomination, and thanks for the advice. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs a complete review; definitely issues in terms of sourcing and possibly with WP:ADVERTISING. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline, per & . Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to notability. The Products and Services section, which is completely unsourced, reads like ad copy, and has barely changed despite the removal of the capitalizations and trademark symbols in your edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed – I've added inline citations to the Products and services section and copy edited the article to reduce promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The hook has been rephrased a few times; see the history for this template. But I propose for consideration:
 * ALT1 ... that the company Goodwin Heart Pine retrieves for lumber production logs that were felled as long ago as the 1800s, but sank in rivers because of their high resin content? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A proposed alternative hook:
 * ALT2 ... that for lumber production the company Goodwin Heart Pine retrieves submerged logs that were felled as long ago as the 1800s, which sank in rivers because of their high resin content? Northamerica1000(talk) 20:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg IMO, the advertising complaint has been satisfactorily resolved. However, the history section is not really prose and thus the article is well short on length. That section will need rewritten into cohesive prose for the article to be considered. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rewrite done – The article's history section has been rewritten into prose. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg All issues have been addressed. Fact has been verified by inline citation - I personally prefer the wording of ALT2 but suggest cutting it short: "... that for lumber production the company Goodwin Heart Pine retrieves submerged logs that were felled as long ago as the 1800s" to leave some intrigue, increasing the chances of click-through. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article does not meet the requirement that all paragraphs be referenced. In particular, the Products and services section, second paragraph, has no citation. For clarity, I'm separately listing as ALT3 the abovementioned shortening of ALT2:
 * ALT3 ... that for lumber production the company Goodwin Heart Pine retrieves submerged logs that were felled as long ago as the 1800s? —BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed – A primary source has been added to the second paragraph of the Products and services section, to verify information. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png I have removed the check mark from the previous comment, since it's the same icon as the approved AGF check mark and might be thought to be approved when it isn't—this still requires an independent reviewer to apply any approving marks. Can such a reviewer please make sure that the issues have been addressed? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, the Fixed template isn't congruent for use on this page – it's too similar to the approved AGF check mark! Northamerica1000(talk) 03:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg - Good to go. Not sure why Bluemoon felt he couldn't approve it himself after his concern was addressed, but since I was asked to comment by a third party I am doing so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)