Talk:No net loss

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 August 2024 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from No net loss appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that at least 69 countries have "no net loss" environmental policies?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No net loss environmental policy.

Wikipedia

No net loss

I wanted to create a page for no net loss as a policy beyond the United States while retaining the US-specific article. I hope to rename the No net loss wetlands policy page to 'No net loss policy in the United States' and create this as an overall article to address the issue that the page does not represent a worldwide view of the subject since this has been flagged as an issue for three years now. Manxshearwater (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left by AfC reviewers

Comment: @Robert McClenon: I have closed the RM with a moved outcome. Since you have this draft under review, do you want to complete the process? – robertsky (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is currently a redirect from [No net loss]] to No net loss wetlands policy. There is also a Requested Move to rename No net loss wetlands policy to No net loss wetlands policy in the United States. Consideration should be given to accepting this draft as No net loss environmental policy, because it applies to other types of environmental resources besides wetlands, and moving the existing article, which is nation-oriented. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 talk 23:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that at least 69 countries have no net loss environmental policies?

Source: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41893-018-0176-z

Reviewed:

Created by Manxshearwater (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Manxshearwater (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Manxshearwater: Not a review, but the hook says "more than 69" and the article says "at least 69", and these are not the same thing.--Laun chba ller 16:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting review. RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is new enough and long enough.
Looks to be appropriately sourced.
QPQ exempt.
Earwig doesn't show any copyvio problems.
I can't get to the full source to resolve the "at least 69" vs "more than 69" issue pointed out by Launchballer, but this needs to get sorted before this can be promoted, so giving this a query. Other than that, everything is good. I'm not excited about the interestingness of the hook, but it's not bad enough to hold up approval. RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention @RoySmith @chba, I have changed it accordingly! Manxshearwater (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. I'll AGF that this actually matches the source. BTW, for future reference, it's generally better to strike out an incorrect hook and add an alternate below it instead of editing it in-line. That just makes the history easier to follow. But no worries, you're good for this nomination.