Template:Did you know nominations/Queenston Formation
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Queenston Formation
edit
- ... that the Queenston Formation (outcrop pictured) is used by the ceramic industry in the Canadian province of Ontario and for natural gas production in the U.S. state of New York?
- Reviewed: Konstantin Krasavin
Created/expanded by Óðinn (talk). Self nom at 06:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Prose portion increased from 290 words (1,588 characters, without spaces) to 584 words (3,363 characters without spaces) within five days of nomination, therefore increased 2.01 times (or 2.11 tomes), which is less than fivefold. Article has been expanded fivefold, but within eight days of nomination, not five. Sorry. Otherwise O.K. except that I haven't done a copyvio check.
- This is a new article. Óðinn (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, O.K., didn't catch the move into article space. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is a new article. Óðinn (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Needs copyvio check (how do I do that?) but otherwise O.K. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Reviewer for close paraphrasing check, please? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the 'Structure and stratigraphy' section is uncited. In that paragraph the use of 'gradational' is unclear, it implies to me some form of overstep, but I don't think that that is what's meant - I would guess that it means that the Queenston Formation overlies these three time equivalent formations in the different areas, but I don't have access to the full text for ref #1. Mikenorton (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've reworded it a bit to make that meaning clear (hopefully). The article's date, length and sourcing are fine except that I can't find the production history of the West Auburn Field in the cited source. There is no evidence of copyvio/close paraphrasing problems (AGF for ref#1 that I didn't have access to). I would suggest tweaking the hook to say "... and for natural gas production in the ...", otherwise the hook is short enough, cited in the article and supported by those sources. Mikenorton (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked the hook again slightly to match my original suggestion as I think that it reads better. The image status is OK and looks good at 100px. All other issues resolved. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
