The following discussion 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 Carabinieri ( talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bozeman National Fish Hatchery

• ... that the Bozeman National Fish Hatchery was instrumental is saving the greenback cutthroat trout (pictured) from extinction?

• Reviewed: Tramways in Plymouth
• Comment: moved from userspace to mainspace on 06 May 2012.

Created/expanded by PumpkinSky ( talk), Montanabw ( talk). Nominated by PumpkinSky ( talk) at 02:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• New enough and long enough. Fully supported by inline citations. Pictures have copyright tags. Check and check and check give no plagiarism concerns. Hook is properly formatted.
• Six of the nine sources are from the organisation that runs the place. Unclear from a notability viewpoint but assuming that all U.S. National Register of Historic Places are notable.
• Not sure source supports fact, which supports hook this says : "We will also screen a 30 minute documentary about USFWS efforts to recover the Greenback Cutthroat trout in Colorado." This is different from "instrumental is saving the greenback cutthroat trout (pictured) from extinction?" -- LauraHale ( talk) 06:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hook fact needs to be resolved either by finding new source that supports fact or proposing alt hook. -- LauraHale ( talk) 06:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the hook, I guess I was over eager. And yes all NRHP places are consider notable. I'll see if I can beef that part up. PumpkinSky talk 10:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries on the notability front. If it was a business, I'd be more concerned. Major issue is I do like the hook and if a citation can be found which explicitly states this, ideally an independent one, it would be good to go. -- LauraHale ( talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

See this It's from the Forest Service, which is a different entity. Search for "extinct". That paragraph says it was thought extinct, then endangered, then threatened, so it's getting better. Peruse the rest of the doc and you see this Bozeman facility was a key. The next paragraph says it may be delisted. this is dated 2002. What wording would you feel ok with? PumpkinSky talk 11:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

More support of Bozeman's involvement here. From Colo State U. 1998. PumpkinSky talk 11:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Bozeman Chronicle PumpkinSky talk 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reworded article. Am adding refs now. PumpkinSky talk 11:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

so I've come up with ALT1... that the Bozeman National Fish Hatchery played an instrumental role in getting the greenback cutthroat trout's (pictured) rating under the Endangered Species Act changed from extinct to threatened?

It's more precise, but not very catchy. How about "instrumental in rebuilding the endangered population of the greenback cutthroat trout?" Im not 100% happy with that wording either, but it's nice if a hook can be punchy. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK with me, so is ALT1. here is ALT2: ... that the Bozeman National Fish Hatchery was instrumental in rebuilding the endangered population of the greenback cutthroat trout (pictured)?

Good w/me. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to go with Alt2. Thanks for addressing things. :) -- LauraHale ( talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)