Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Whitman Cross


 * 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) 12:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles Whitman Cross

 * ... that Charles Whitman Cross and three other geologists created the CIPW norm for analyzing rocks in 1903, and it is still in use?
 * Reviewed: Rock on Top of Another Rock

Created by Lagrange613 (talk). Self nominated at 22:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Nice article - new enough, long enough, well written and properly referenced to reliable sources. The hook fact is accurate and sourced. This is good to go. Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So as a complete novice, the hook says "... created the normative mineralogy norm ...", what exactly does that mean? What's a "norm"?  It should also say "... in 1903 which is still in use?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe "that Charles Whitman Cross was one of a group of geologists who created the CIPW Norm in 1903, used to analyse rocks, which is still in use today?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should shy away from calling things by their names, even at DYK, but you're right, we should be clear about what we mean. What about
 * ALT1: ... that Charles Whitman Cross and three other geologists created the CIPW norm, a method for analyzing rocks, in 1903, and it is still in use?
 * I didn't use "which" because I was taught that it needs to appear immediately after its antecedent; "... in 1903, which is still in use" makes it sound like 1903 is still in use. Lagrange613 23:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg As a layman, the hook reads well now and it is easy to relate to the relevant section of the article. Agree that the article is new enough, long enough, well written and properly referenced to reliable sources, although I don't have access to those sources to check for copyvio. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, much better hook and links, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)