- The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Abelsonite
edit- ... 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 2013, 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
- Ref 5 covers both the basins and the sentence before it (Green River Formation). Would you like it also placed after the specific sentence? Regarding the chlorophyll/cholorophyll a link, just chlorophyll is more generic and covers some uncertainty expressed in the sources. Regarding QPQ, Vensatry's review consists solely of the creation date, on which he was incorrect. Chris857 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Chris, this is my first DYK review in a loooong time, so please excuse if I am a little behind the times on current practices. Re ref 5, when I last reviewed the expectation was a ref on the fact or its sentence, so I would appreciate a cross ref, thanks. Re chlorophyll, I take your point. Re Vensatry's review, I agree with you, I have no problem with accepting your QPQ review, but I was / am unsure if there are standards on multiple editors claiming the same review for QPQ. To be honest, I would've been inclined to refuse to credit V's review but s/he has already had it accepted as a QPQ. I might flag the issue for general discussion at WT:DYK but unless second credits are prohibited, my decision for your specific case is to accept your QPQ review. Final thought, what did you think on my comments on the hook proposals and possible ALT2? EdChem (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: Chris857's QPQ is fine. Some nominations require more than one review, each of which requires significant effort, so having two (or more) credits come from the nomination of a single article is not usual. (There is no requirement that a reviewer return after the issues pointed up in the initial complete review have been fixed; that initial review is sufficient for QPQ credit.) In this case, Chris857 clearly did a credit-worthy review; there should be no question at all about deserving a QPQ credit for it. Vensatry's review, however, probably should not have received QPQ credit, since it was erroneous. I'm not sure it's worth revisiting at this late date. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Review Continuation and Conclusion
- Referencing fine, minor issues corrected and cross-refs added.
- References do support all hook facts.
- QPQ fine.
- No evidence of plagiarism or unacceptable close paraphrasing noticed.
- Article is good-to-go.
Approved for original hook.- Approved for hook ALT1.
- Can I approve ALT2? I'm not sure, but if I can, it is approved.
- My preference is for ALT2, then ALT1, then the original hook (in that order). EdChem (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
