Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of Russia

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 Allen3 ^talk 11:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Geology of Russia edit

(

)

... that parts of Russia lie on the same tectonic plate as Japan?

Created/expanded by Chris.urs-o (talk), Tobias1984 (talk), Medeis (talk). Nominated by Tobias1984 (talk) at 15:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This has not undergone a 5 fold expansion. Superzohar left a pretty hard to understand version of about 10K, and now we are up to 24K, so do you want to stretch this back to 6 October prior to Superzohar's editing? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Bartlett: The 10K version was a machine translation. I guess we could also move it to October 6th. Thank you for commenting. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The article was created over a redirect on 6 October. As noted the version at that time was a machine translation, which was subsequently revised and expanded. IMO, this can be treated as content new to Wikipedia, and thus is eligible for DYK.

However, before this can be used in DYK, the article needs "adequate" reference citations. Currently, several passages are unsourced, including the first paragraph in the section "West Siberian basin", the entire section "West Kamchatka orogeny", most of the content in the section "Sikhote-Alin orogeny", and the entire section "Sakhalin Cenozoic orogeny". Also, the English-language writing is still rough; for example, I found several incomplete sentences (example: "Including early Carboniferous metamorphic terranes, composed of folds, domes and shear zones with related high-pressure/low-temperature metamorphism") and some other sentences whose meanings I cannot discern (example: "From the North Sakhalin basin associated oil and gas, and to rocks of the Middle Miocene deposits are confined to the island of coal").

The proposed hook fact is in the article, but it is not directly stated. The hook fact is illustrated in the map of the Okhotsk Plate, but to figure that out the reader must be able to identify the unlabeled geographic features on the map (notably Hokkaido, Kamchatka, and the political boundaries of Japan and Russia) and must recognize that various lines in the figure are the boundaries of a tectonic plate. The hook needs to be in the article text and it needs to be clearly supported by a reference citation.

How about: "... that Russia lies on two different cratons". That is mentioned in the text. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not review other aspects of the article yet. --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I started making substantive changes to the article, so I am no longer eligible to complete the DYK review. However, for reasons stated above, I do not think the article is ready for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I began as well intending to review the article, but ended up doing a lot of editing. I have cleared up the problematic machine translations from the Russian, and added some material to make many of the technical phrases clearer to the layman. I have removed the tags about unclear sections and the article tag for being too technical. At this point, assuming someone wants to formally review it and confirm the blurb, I feel it is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Tremendous work getting this article on such an important and underrepresented subject up to where it is now. There are only two sections that are either missing citations or very light on them-Geology_of_Russia#West_Kamchatka_orogen and the Geology_of_Russia#Sikhote-Alin_orogeny section below that. While there aren't really any controversial statements in either sections, it would be nice if they were better referenced for completeness. I do think the clarity issues have been adequately address and as a layman with very little geology background, I was able to comprehend and follow the article. The hook is fully sourced by several of the citations. The only reason why I'm not giving this a full-go is that I can't really confirmed the absence of plagiarism or close-paraphrasing due to several of the cites being behind a paywall. A quick and dirty google search using several lines from the article doesn't come up with any red flags. Ordinarily, I would be incline to give it the all clear but with how DYK has been under so much scrutiny, it would be nice if someone with Science Direct access could give this article a look over. I hope someone does because it would be great to see this article on the main page. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine

Those sections were translated from the Russian, but neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian version of the article offers a source. Someone better versed than I in Geology might be able to find sources. Frankly, though, I'd rather see those sections removed to the talk page than left stand if they are in the way of getting this up on DYK. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have followed your suggestion and removed them to the talk page for now. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I found only one access-protected article, in Geology_of_Russia#Timan-Pechora_Basin. I checked the reference and rewrote this section to agree with it. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I got some time yesterday at a university library that had Science Direct access and ran a check on a couple of the other links that I was curious about and I found no evidence of close paraphrasing or plagiarism so I feel comfortable with giving this hook the all-go. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)