Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of Cyprus

Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Geology of Cyprus's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Geology of Cyprus

edit

Created by Tobias1984 (talk). Nominated by Carabinieri (talk) at 02:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

  • I didn't find anything in the cited source to suggest this directly. Needs a better, less convoluted source maybe? But length and newness criteria are good. Ashwin147 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hook source problem cited above. Needs to be addressed or responded to. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • New enough, long enough, no close paraphrasing seen. The language of the sources and the article is very academic, though, so it's hard for me to understand, much less suggest an alt hook. I added a "citation needed" tag to one sentence because I didn't see anything about seismic activity in the source; it just seems to be talking about subduction. I think the article would benefit from a few more sources from sites other than the Geological Survey of Cyprus; there are plenty of research papers available on the web. Yoninah (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't even see that this was nominated. I will do some corrections to the sources and the hook tomorrow. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems part of the problem may be that the references don't use the term Anatolian Plate, instead referring to the Eurasian Plate which includes the Anatolian region (at least in older sources). I've removed the cite needed tag as the sentence is supported by the ref after the next sentence. Vsmith (talk)
  • New enough, long enough etc. Sources support the hook. I agree that a wider range of sources would be good, and there are plenty of them on this rich subject, but that does not disqualify this initial version of the article. GTG. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)