Template:Did you know nominations/Michigan Geological Survey
The following is an archived discussion of Michigan Geological Survey'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 know
(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 Allen3 talk 10:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Michigan Geological Survey edit
... that the Michigan Geological Survey severed ties to two universities in the 1890s because of perceived harm to the survey, only to become fully administered by WMU in 2011 for its betterment?
- Reviewed: Brain Activity Map Project
- Comment: If the reviewer can see a way to tighten up the hook, I'm all for it
Moved to mainspace by Chris857 (talk). Self nominated at 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
Article is new enough and long enough and amply supported by footnotes. QPQ is done. I have some concern, however, about some of the wording and phrasing being too close to the sources, particularly Segall. (See WP:Close paraphrasing.) It's not egregious, but a lot of the phrasing and word choice is very similar, as in this example:
- Segall: Wadsworth made arrangements with the USGS that enabled the State Survey to devote most of its time and resources to economic geology, while leaving the more purely scientific studies, particularly paleontology, to the USGS.
- Article: Wadsworth also made arrangements for the Michigan Geological Survey to concentrate on economic geology, leaving scientific study, particularly paleontology, to the United States Geological Survey.
- I think some judicious editing could make the article more different from that source. As for the hook, I suggest rewording:
- ALT1: ... that the Michigan Geological Survey severed its university affiliations in the 1890s due to perceived disadvantages of those relationships, but became part of Western Michigan University in 2011? --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have attempted to fix spots of close paraphrasing (focusing on Segall, as Allen, Bagg, and Merrill are all PD-pre1923). I like the wording of your suggested hook, especially getting WMU's name in full with a barely-longer hook. Chris857 (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made some additional edits since you left off. I not only worked to reduce close paraphrasing, but I also wanted to add some substance about the survey's work and accomplishments, so the article reads less like a recitation of "begats" in the bible. I think the close paraphrasing concern is resolved, but I think it would be best if this gets another set of eyes before it goes to the prep areas. The new reviewer should look at the close paraphrasing question and the hook fact. Everything else is OK. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have attempted to fix spots of close paraphrasing (focusing on Segall, as Allen, Bagg, and Merrill are all PD-pre1923). I like the wording of your suggested hook, especially getting WMU's name in full with a barely-longer hook. Chris857 (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
