Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Abelsonite"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Chris857 (nomination) |
imported>EdChem (review) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
--> | --> | ||
| − | :* | + | :*''Reviewed'': |
| + | :''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 being the case and given the material in the article about geoporphyrins, I wonder if a better hook 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. | ||
| + | :I will return and check copyvio and referencing issues later, hopefully after the submitter has added a reference for the original hook. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 11:38, 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 11:38, 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)
- Reviewed:
- 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 being the case and given the material in the article about geoporphyrins, I wonder if a better hook 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.
- I will return and check copyvio and referencing issues later, hopefully after the submitter has added a reference for the original hook. EdChem (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)