Template:Did you know nominations/Health and safety hazards of nanomaterials

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) 06:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Health and safety hazards of nanomaterials edit

(

)

Carbon nanotubes penetrating a lung cell

... that the health and safety hazards of nanomaterials include inhalation exposure (pictured) and dust explosions? Source: [1], pp. 17 and 24

Reviewed: Cannon Coaster

Moved to mainspace by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 01:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - The hook facts are not sufficiently clearly cited inline or above.
Interesting: - The hook seems too obvious for my taste and doesn't sufficiently bring out the special qualities of nano scale. It would be better if it was more related to the picture. For example, it might say that animal studies indicate that carbon nanotubes can irritate lungs like asbestos fibres.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is quite heavy going. The lead would benefit from copy-editing to make it more interesting and accessible per WP:JARGON. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Well, I thought that dust explosions of carbon nanotubes were a non-obvious hazard... A lot of the more interesting facts of the article are a bit too technical for a DYK hook (two examples: filters are better at capturing smaller nanoparticles because they have more Brownian motion; nanoparticle size doesn't affect the combustion rate because volitilization is so fast that the combustion itself is the rate-limiting step). ALT1 below emphasizes the dust explosions more, ALT2 is along the lines of what you suggested. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the health and safety hazards of nanomaterials include not only inhalation exposure (pictured) but also dust explosions?
ALT2: ... that in animal studies of the health and safety hazards of nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes had similar inhalation exposure effects (pictured) to asbestos?

@John: I'll pass ALT2 if you make it "similar ... to" rather than "similar ... as", which I find too grating. The prose style is still too ponderous and wordy for my taste but that shouldn't be a blocker at DYK which is for new material. (I was amused by an item in the news this morning about a hyper-local multi-passenger pooled vehicle – a bus!) I checked the hook length and it's 154 which is inside the DYK limit of 200. Andrew D. (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Change made. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks -- we're good to go then. I'm still interested in dust hazards myself -- for example, the metal dust in the London Underground -- and so will continue to follow the progress of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)