Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Pilbara Craton


 * 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 97198 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Pilbara Craton

 * ... that the Eastern Pilbara Craton contains 3.6 billion year old Earth's crust?
 * Reviewed: will do one but none is required. I reviewed Lapis Lacedaemonius

Moved to mainspace by Ebuhyo1 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 07:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, and appears to be free from copyright violations and close paraphrasing. However, I'm unsure of where this idea of "3.6 billion year old Earth's crust" comes from, reading the article. I think that this could be made clear in the article, or a different hook may be required. Also, a QPQ review is now required for every nomination after someone's fifth nomination, after a recent RfC resulting in . Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That QPQ rule came into effect on 20th November, but this was nominated before. I have added one from my recent reviews for you to appreciate! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice that. QPQ done. Symbol question.svg However, I am still unsure about this idea of "3.6 billion year old Earth's crust". Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to simplify the writing so that the average person could understand. The section it comes from is Granitic Domes and Greenstone Belts, but 3.6 is an approximation for the range given. Ga = gigaannum = billion years ago. Do you think the hook need to be more precise? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to finish this review? Fuebaey (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm afraid that I'm going to have to request another reviewer. I'm worried about the unreferenced sections, and would not be willing to tick this article without these sections being referenced. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to improve referencing. But the last section is a bit of a summary and opinion.  Perhsp it needs trimming! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg It has been 13 days, and the last section remains unreferenced. Graeme Bartlett, the nomination cannot pass while this remains the case, no matter who reviews it. If you want to trim the section and reference what remains, that's fine, but please do something soon to bring the article into line with DYK requirements. There's no point in calling for a new reviewer until you do. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Section removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about sourcing for the Granitic Domes and Greenstone Belts section? There's material there not covered in the ensuing subsections, some of which is in also mentioned in the lede. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am working on this, a reference is added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Graeme Bartlett, let us know when you're done working on it. We'll call for a review at that point. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think I have deleted the unreferenced bits and referenced some left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment current suggested hook does not read well. --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New, long enough, couldn't detect plagiarism, etc. The referencing looks to be fixed, and the hook is technically correct and cited, but I do agree that it reads weird. Would it be technically more correct to state:
 * ALT2: ... that the Eastern Pilbara Craton contains Earth's crust of 3.6 Ga (3.6 billion years)?
 * If we don't need the Ga measurement, shouldn't the original hook be hyphenated like:
 * ALT1a: ... that the Eastern Pilbara Craton contains 3.6-billion-year-old Earth's crust?
 * 23W 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (pinging, )
 * I am happy with ALT2, ALT1a excessive hyphenation looks ugly. Most of our readers won't know Ga, but ALT2 explains it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would we need another review then? 23W 00:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. Here's my attempt:


 * Symbol question.svg The article is mostly ready, as previous reviewers have noted, but there are still two major statements that aren't referenced:
 * "The Pilbara Craton along with the Kaapvaal Craton are the only remaining areas of the Earth with pristine 3.6–2.5 Ga crust. The extremely old and rare nature of this crustal region makes it a valuable resource in the understanding of the evolution of the Archean Earth among the scientific community." (This statement could be construed as using weasel words, so it's important that we get a ref for it.)
 * "The greenstone belts are interpreted as altered komatiitic basalts and volcanosedimentary rocks. These rocks range from ultramafic, mafic, and felsic in composition. Ultramafic rocks such as dunites can also be found." (This statement seems to be paraphrased, in more layman-friendly language, in the lead, so a ref is needed here as well.)
 * Once these issues are resolved, the article should be good to go. As for the wording of the hook, how about this?
 * ALT3: ... that the Eastern Pilbara Craton contains pieces of Earth crust that are 3.6 billion years old?
 * Best of luck!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK both of these are referenced, although they were summary statements, I also remove some weasel wording. ALT3 sounds good to me too. (I have renumbered the second alt2 to alt3 to save ambiguity) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to be sure the issues have been resolved. I've struck the earlier hooks since ALT3 has better wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * : REVIEW COMPLETED - The following has been checked in this review by Esemono 
 * Green check.svg QPQ completed
 * Green check.svg Article created by Ebuhyo1 on November 14, 2014 and has 5908 characters of readable prose
 * Green check.svg NPOV
 * Green check.svg ALT 3 Hook is interesting, short enough sourced with offline Ref 1 AGF
 * Green check.svg Every paragraph sourced
 * Green check.svg As noted above no copyright vios and Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio
 * Green check.svg The following statements have been sourced:


 * "The Pilbara Craton along with the Kaapvaal Craton are the only remaining areas of the Earth with pristine 3.6–2.5 Ga crust. The extremely old and rare nature of this crustal region makes it a valuable resource in the understanding of the evolution of the Archean Earth among the scientific community." with Ref [2]
 * "The greenstone belts are interpreted as altered komatiitic basalts and volcanosedimentary rocks. These rocks range from ultramafic, mafic, and felsic in composition. Ultramafic rocks such as dunites can also be found." Sourced with Ref [7]
 * Green check.svg Weasel words have been removed.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg GTG -- Esemono (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)