Template:Did you know nominations/Guapi-Guapiaçu Environmental Protection Area


 * 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) 06:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Guapi-Guapiaçu Environmental Protection Area

 * ... that the Guapi-Guapiaçú Environmental Protection Area has lost over 71% of its natural vegetation?
 * ALT1:... that 15% of the Guapi-Guapiaçú Environmental Protection Area has been set aside for sustainable use?

Created/expanded by Aymatth2 (talk). Nominated by Iazyges (talk) at 19:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Symbol question.svg  Article is new enough (when nominated), long enough, nominator doesn't require QPQ since he/she has only one DYK credit, though creator has had several. Hooks need correcting or clarification. Hook 1 says the area has lost 71% of its vegetation, but Bing Translator tells me the source merely says vegetation is absent from the 71%, not that it was once there and lost. Hook 2 appears to be verified regarding the 15% figure, however, in article, it states "1,539 hectares (3,800 acres) has natural vegetation" and Bing Translator tells me the "1,539" figure refers to land without vegetation.  Ribbet32 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right about the hooks. I must have been half asleep when I looked at that table, and mixed up APA and APP. No excuse. I have corrected the article to say what the source says. I suggest ALT2 below: Aymatth2 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT2:... that 71% of permanently protected land in the Guapi-Guapiaçú Environmental Protection Area in Brazil has no natural vegetation?
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Being asleep, and the fact that it was caught and corrected, is plenty excuse ;) I added "in Brazil" to the hook as 99.9% of readers (including me) won't know where this is; think it's good now. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)