- 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 4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sharyn Canyon edit
Sharyn Canyon
- ... that over several millennia of weathering action, the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) has formed strange, attractive and colourful shapes and sizes, a much smaller version of the Grand Canyon, but impressive?
5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 06:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
New enough (5x expansion began on November 23, 2015), long enough (3,447 characters "readable prose size"), fully referenced. AGF on offline hook. Image on Commons with appropriate licence. QPQ done. Good to go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
"Strange", "attractive", and "impressive" are all subjective words, and thus not NPOV. The plural of "millennium" is "millennia" by the way. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
ALT1 hook ...that the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) formed over several millennium of weathering action, is a much smaller version of the Grand Canyon, but it is equally impressive?
ALT2 hook ... that the geology of the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) is sedimentary red sandstone, which subjected to the "atmogenic process", has resulted in steep slopes with formations of columns and arches?
- ALT1 shares the same issues as the original hook, albeit to a lesser extent. As for ALT2, unfortunately reference 5 is a Wikipedia mirror (see PediaPress); and thus not a reliable source. Reference 6 is acceptable, but as far as I can tell, does not fully support all the content in the hook. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that the geology of the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) is sedimentary red sandstone, which subjected to the atmogenic erosion, has "weird and colourful formations"?
-
- :REVIEW COMPLETED - The following review was completed by Esemono
QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher John O'Neill- Article was 5x expanded by Nvvchar on November 23, 2015 and has 3424 characters (596 words) "readable prose size"
- NPOV
- Hook ALT3 is interesting and sourced with Ref 2="weird and colourful formations" & Ref 6="Charyn Canyon ... the result of the sandstone (sedimentary rocks) atmogenic erosion."
- Every paragraph sourced
- Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio
GTG -- Esemono (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's suitable to use subjective material such as that used in ALT3. Also atmogenic erosion may need a wikilink or some explanation, as it leave most readers clueless. Jolly Ω Janner 07:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Jolly Janner I have explained "atmogenic process} in the article with this reference [1]. I have modified the hook to ALT 4 ... that the geology of the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) is sedimentary red sandstone, which subjected to the atmospheric forces, has unusual formations? Nvvchar. 15:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Part of this content is not supported by the sources. It doesn't say that the sandstone is red, and nowhere does it say that the formations are "unusual". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Jolly JannerI have added the book reference (ref 1). I had changed the "weird and colourful formations" to mean "unusual". I will change it to "sculpted formations" if you agree. For this also ref 1 is relevant. Thanks.Nvvchar. 04:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- "unusual" is acceptable. Let's not go with sculpted formations. Red sandstone is in the source. Jolly Ω Janner 05:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Jolly Janner Thanks.Nvvchar. 06:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)