Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Bonaparte

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Mount Bonaparte

(

)

The eastern flank of Mount Bonaparte and Bonaparte Creek valley

Mount Bonaparte with 2021 burn scar in 2026

... that the 7,259.5-foot (2,212.7 m) Mount Bonaparte (vista pictured) had a cistern hand carved into its granite summit in 1929?

Source: Casali 2018 Hiking Washington's Fire Lookouts - "the lookout staffer in 1929 carved a water cistern by hand out of the summit caprock"

- ALT1: ... that Mount Rainier and Canada can be seen from fire lookouts on Mount Bonaparte's 7,259.5-foot (2,212.7 m) summit (vista pictured) in northern central Washington?

Source: Source: Casali 2018 Hiking Washington's Fire Lookouts - "To the North, just a stones throw away is Canada, with Baldy Mountain Resort Visible."

Landers & Romano 2013 - "...head up the "new" lookout to take in the views. They are exceptional and reach as far as Mount Rainier on a clear day. Lake Osoyoos and British Columbias 7558-foot Mount Baldy are to the north. And to the east trace the entire Kettle Crest into Canadas Granby Country" Republic News-Miner 1929 - "...affords a splendid view of the surrounding country, in fact at times, Mt. Rainier is visible from this point"

Republic News-Miner 1919 - "Mt Bonaparte has an altitude of nearly 8,000 feet and on a clear day affords a distinct view of Mt Rainier and Mt Chopaka."

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Black-rumped magpie

5x expanded by Kevmin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 391 past nominations.

Kev min § 18:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC).

I'm a bit uncertain the hooks are especially strong, but I think they’re passably interesting and could draw the right sort of reader in. Everything seems to be in order regarding sourcing and copyright. The photo is from a US gov collection and good to go. I'm assuming that the relatively old QPQ hasn't been used for any other noms, so that's all set. Yep, nice work putting together that expansion! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Pulled per Fram's report at WP:ERRORS and the reversion of the article's expansion. Courtesy ping @Kevmin, Pbritti, and Zzz plant: for awareness and discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

This should not be on Approved.--Laun chba ller 19:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Re-review of article is now needed.--Kev min § 16:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Since re-review is needed, adding appropriate icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fram: and @Pbritti: where are we on this one? Have the issues been solved? It would be helpful to a reviewer going in knowing whether or not the sourcing issues were resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Nobody is going to approval tick an article with a potentially unresolved content dispute and risk another pull at WP:ERRORS.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@4meter4: I would be willing to review this nom again but would like to see Kevmin advise me regarding which hooks they want reviewed (or if they would like new hooks added to the nom). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if procedurally we must have a new reviewer, or not. All I know is it is hard to do a new review in this context without having some sort of reported assessment as to whether the reasons for the initial pull to ERRORS was solved. In looking at the article talk page, Pbritti seems satisfied, but Fram never chimed in. We really need to hear from the editor whose objections led to the pulling of the article in the first place.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

No idea why anyone would want to give them the reward of a DYK after it was so hard to get them to check or correct anything, but it's not my playground, if you think this should get rereviewed and put on the mainspace for some reason, I won't stop you. Fram (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@4meter4:, Fram has responded, and I did actively engage in the talk page despite the vitriol and distain given. Shall we have a new review or proceed with @Pbritti:s?--Kev min § 15:21, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Note, I have added a new image of Mount Bonaparte taken two weeks ago the article and the nomination.--Kev min § 15:25, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Given that Fram has withdrawn their opposition, and you are familiar with what has transpired, I support you re-reviewing this.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Kevmin and 4meter4:

Reviewing... I am traveling today and will need some time to do a final spot check of sources. I'll finalize in the next 12 hours. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Performed some trivial cleanup but yep it's good now. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2026 (UTC)