Template:Did you know nominations/Şırnak Silopi power station
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Şırnak Silopi power station
... that gilsonite powers Şırnak Silopi?Source: "The plant is an asphaltite-fuel, Fluidized Bed and environmentally friendly thermal power plant." [1]- ALT1:
... that Şırnak Silopi power station is very unusual in burning asphaltite? - ALT2:
... that Şırnak Silopi power station burns gilsonite? - ALT3:
... that Şırnak Silopi burns gilsonite? - ALT4:... that Şırnak Silopi burns asphaltite?
- ALT5:... that asphaltite powers Şırnak Silopi?
- ALT6:
... that Şırnak Silopi is the only power station in the world that burns asphaltite - unless you know better?
- ALT1:
Created by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC).
I like alt3 the most - the phrasing makes the subject sound most interesting. Article is new, long enough, well-sourced, hook is sourced and interesting. Suggestion for alts1 and 2, the phrase 'Şırnak Silopi power station' should be 'the Şırnak Silopi power station'. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is not clear why this nomination was approved. DYK articles must have a minimum of 1500 characters of text; this one has 1462 characters. Several paragraphs lack any citations, per Rule D2. The main problem with the article is it is a series of one-sentence paragraphs. An article appearing on the main page must look like more than a work in progress. Some expansion of each of the topics is in order. Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize, I had not read the supplementary guidelines. I agree with your evaluation and have changed my review accordingly. Thank you for taking the time to review and catch this; I hope to be more diligent in the future. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have added a little more info and cites. If more needs doing please let me know.Chidgk1 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, the article looks much better now. Length and sourcing are fine. The only outstanding issue is that the hook mentions gilsonite but the article doesn't. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, there's no mention in the source (footnote 1) about gilsonite. I think you should go back to asphaltite in the lead and body of the article. So where are we holding with the hook? Is ALT3 hooky with the word asphaltite? I've struck ALT1 because it's not mentioned in the article at all. Another approach would be to mention the possible health problems resulting from the power station. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Re ALT1 as far as I know no other power station in the world burns asphaltite - but unfortunately I have no cite for that. I could write in the article that no other asphaltite burning power station is listed in the Global power plant database I guess (although I have not checked recently as they have stopped responding to issues on Github so I don't know how accurate they are now - is it worth me checking the database?). If not the only one in the world it is certainly unusual so I could write that in the article. According to the gilsonite article asphaltite is a synonym. I just put gilsonite in the hook as it seemed more hooky. But feel free to change the article and/or use an asphaltite hook if you prefer. I would prefer to reserve a health hook for a future article on a different power station.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- A hooky fact is not always that the plant is the "first" or the "only". Hooky facts are derived from the detail in the article; if you add more description, you can find a good hook. I looked through the article again to find a hooky fact and left a "citation needed" tag for a fact that wasn't mentioned in the source. This might also lend itself to a hook:
Despite abundant local renewable resources, because of the energy policy of Turkey the plant is subsidised like lignite-fuelled plants
, but the truth is that I don't understand what this means; more description is needed to explain whylignite-fuelled plants
are different. Meanwhile, I struck the hooks that mention gilsonite because there is no source for it in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- A hooky fact is not always that the plant is the "first" or the "only". Hooky facts are derived from the detail in the article; if you add more description, you can find a good hook. I looked through the article again to find a hooky fact and left a "citation needed" tag for a fact that wasn't mentioned in the source. This might also lend itself to a hook:
- @Chidgk1, can you provide more detail for the reference 'Stauffer & Gümüşel (2016), pages 4-6'? I don't see it listed under 'Sources'. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
