Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Abelsonite"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>EdChem (ce) |
imported>EdChem (expand) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*{{DYKmake|Abelsonite|Chris857}} | *{{DYKmake|Abelsonite|Chris857}} | ||
--> | --> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:''Article Issues'' | :''Article Issues'' | ||
| Line 34: | Line 32: | ||
::I would be interested in the submitter's thoughts on linking to [[chlorophyll a]] rather than [[chlorophyll]]. | ::I would be interested in the submitter's thoughts on linking to [[chlorophyll a]] rather than [[chlorophyll]]. | ||
:*Hook neutrality is not a problem. | :*Hook neutrality is not a problem. | ||
| − | :I will return and check copyvio and referencing issues later, hopefully after | + | :''QPQ reviewing requirement'' |
| + | :*Chris857's user page claims over 5 DYK credits, so this requirement applies. Chris857 did do a [[Template:Did you know nominations/Chinchaga fire|DYK review for ''chinchaga fire'']]. Vensatry also claimed credit for this same review [[Template:Did you know nominations/List of international cricket centuries by Garfield Sobers|here]]. I don't know whether this is acceptable - for two editors to both be credited for a review - but I would credit Chris857's claim to the review over Vensatry's both for comprehensiveness and accuracy. | ||
| + | :''Other thoughts'' | ||
| + | :I will return and check copyvio and referencing issues later, hopefully after Chris has added a reference for the original hook. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 11:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 11:55, 7 January 2013
Abelsonite
- ... that abelsonite is known only from the Green River Formation in Utah and Colorado?
- ALT1:... that the mineral abelsonite probably formed from chlorophyll?
- Reviewed: Chinchaga fire
5x expanded by Chris857 (talk). Self nom at 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Article Issues
- Expansion is 2179/256 = 8.51... > 5x as required.
- Expansion occurred on 7 January 2012, so date requirements satisfied.
- Policy - neutrality and citations are fine. Copyvio check to follow.
- Hook Issues
- Sentence supporting original hook is uncited, but may be in the reference from the sentence following.
- Sentence supporting ALT1 is cited. Reference check to follow.
- Hook length is fine
- As a chemist, I find ALT1 more interesting - when thinking of substances leading to minerals, chlorophyll does not strike me as a common source. That a mineral is only found in one area strikes me more as a "So what?" kind of fact. The material in the article about geoporphyrins makes me wonder if a better hook (by combining with ALT1) might be:
- ALT2: ... that the mineral abelsonite probably formed from chlorophyll and is the only known crystalline geoporphyrin?
- I would be interested in the submitter's thoughts on linking to chlorophyll a rather than chlorophyll.
- Hook neutrality is not a problem.
- QPQ reviewing requirement
- Chris857's user page claims over 5 DYK credits, so this requirement applies. Chris857 did do a DYK review for chinchaga fire. Vensatry also claimed credit for this same review here. I don't know whether this is acceptable - for two editors to both be credited for a review - but I would credit Chris857's claim to the review over Vensatry's both for comprehensiveness and accuracy.
- Other thoughts
- I will return and check copyvio and referencing issues later, hopefully after Chris has added a reference for the original hook. EdChem (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)