Biodiversity Impact Credit

• ... that species extinctions can be stopped by buying Biodiversity Impact Credits?
• ... that species extinction risk can be reduced by buying Biodiversity Impact Credits? Source: In Biodiversity Impact Credit: Biodiversity Impact Credit (BIC) is a transferable biodiversity credit designed to reduce global species extinction risk.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Am a novice, please advise if I got this wrong.

Created by Pinkchiken (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Biodiversity Impact Credit; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment. @Pinkchiken: Your hook oversimplifies and overpromises. "Designed to reduce risk" is not the same as "all you have to do is buy these Biodiversity Impact Credit to stop species extinction" which is what the hook you originally proposed suggests. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Response. @Cielquiparle: Good point. I'd like to change the hook to "... that species extinction risk can be reduced by buying Biodiversity Impact Credits?" This version does not over-promise. You can buy the credits only if there is a corresponding project which has generated a reduction in mean species extinction risk. When you buy the credit, you cover the cost of the project (or part of), so you contribute to making it happen. If this logic was not correct we'd not be allowed to say that a donation to Oxfam reduces poverty in the world. Please could you help me revise the proposal such that it does not return to the back of the queue? Pinkchiken 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• My suggestion would be along the lines of:

• ALT1: ... that Biodiversity Impact Credits seek to stop species extinctions?

@Pinkchiken: I have suggested a better "safer" ALT hook above. Thus I am no longer eligible to review this, but perhaps we can find another reviewer now. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Thank you. What I meant to ask was how to technically revise the proposal. But I think I got it: I just edited the text in this page. Let's see what another reviewer thinks. I'm trying to avoid watering the hook down so much that it might become unattractive to readers.

Needs a full review. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Article was nominated within a week of being moved to mainspace from AfC, so is new enough. I'm not even going to check the length, it is way more than long enough. The article is properly in-line cited and the copyvio detector finds no issues. The hook topic is kind of the entire topic of the article, so there's multiple sentences I could say are cited in-line for it. So I'm going to count that one as good. Honestly, Cielquiparle, I prefer Pinkchiken's hook. I find it to still be an accurate description and it's a more interesting, quippy way to phrase things. Other than that, they're a new nominator, so no QPQ is required. Looks good to go! Silverseren^C 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Sure, ALT0 may be a quippier hook, but it's possible during a 24-hour run on the main page that another reader like myself will ask where the evidence is that they do in fact reduce species extinction risk...especially if the source cited is so WP:WEASEL in wording. In which case at least you have a backup hook now rather than have to pull the hook entirely. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Needs more work. Referencing isn't up to scratch as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Biodiversity Impact Credit. I would also suggest that the content of the lead be distributed throughout the article, and a new lead be written that summarises the article. This would make the article comply with WP:LEAD. I'd fail this nomination if this aspect wasn't tidied up. Schwede66 23:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pinkchiken Did you see the comment by Schwede66?4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 Yes, thank you for the alert, keenly aware! Will have time to look at this over the weekend 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 @4meter4 @Cielquiparle Thank you for the critical comments. I added references as suggested and made sure that the lead addresses the main points and all topics mentioned in the lead are taken up further below as per WP:LEAD. I added references in the lead mindful of this. Did I miss anything? Pinkchiken 7 April 2024 19:09 (UTC)

• Comment. @Schwede66 Does this address your concern? If we don't hear back from you soon we will have to open this up to a new reviewer.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, it doesn't have to be me who checks this again. I'm currently busy with queue admin checks (which is how I came across this nomination, if I remember correctly). Anyone can review this now. Schwede66 19:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is your reference is the four formulae?--Launchballer 15:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Good point. I added references to the work where BICs are originally defined and analysed for the formulae. One for the definition and one for "...a variety of methods is available to estimate BICs." Since the text explains how the remaining three formulae are obtain/derived, and looking at how this is handled, e.g., in this page, I believe it's not necessary to provide a reference for each equation. -- Pinkchiken 15:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced. (I think this comes under WP:CALC.) There's a few things still in the lede I can't see in the main body, such as 'taxa', and the lede says "developed" by QMUL and the body says "backed" and I'm not sure if these are the same thing.--Launchballer 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Launchballer:, I admire how thorough you all are look at the articles. `Taxa' is the plural of taxon, which means the same as 'taxonomic group' (please follow the link to taxon). The second paragraphs of "Definition" then starts "For a given taxonomic or functional group...", so this is taken up. But this might be a bit obscure. I have therefore added '(taxonomic groups)' after 'taxa'. To 'develop' a metric includes two things: to have a rationale for defining it and to study its properties. In the present case, both has been done based on theoretical analyses. So, 'developed' is a brief general term which includes 'back by theoretical analyses' as a specific case. Therefore, I think the link between lede and body is there. However, if you feel you can make it clearer, please give it a go. Pinkchiken 19:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)