Template:Did you know nominations/GRB 101225A(Christmas burst)

GRB 101225A
Created/expanded by Dr meetsingh (talk). Self nom at 05:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that Gamma ray Burst 101225A, also known as the Christmas burst, discovered on 25 December 2010 was an unusually long duration of the gamma-ray emission?


 * Moved this to the 10th December section so it can be reviewed as it was at the bottom of the special holding area. As per the nom's intentions, would be suitable for the Christmas day list. Miyagawa   (talk)  09:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * hook is short enough, interesting enough, in article, and cited near bottom, cite supports facts. However article is not really new enough, being about 9 days old and only less than doubled in the last 5 days.  This would make a great complement to my gamma ray emitting galaxy DYK, but would be stretching the DYK timeframe to include it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify (+source, +wikilink) some jargon which was apparently copied from plain-text sources? Just one example, "In particular, the initial high-energy emission observed (Dt 5 180 d) detected GRB 101225A at gAB ~27:21+0:27 mag and 0rAB ~26:90+0:14 mag by the BAT can be modelled as a black body with T < 10 keV" - it is unsourced, and while I have a wild guess what it means, I bet 99.99% of readers won't. Materialscientist (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed that observations and will add that information 99% readers can understand. Dr meetsingh  Talk  13:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg In its current form, the article consists largely of a republication of NASA press materials. Yes, the source is PD material, but DYK is not supposed to be republication of PD material. --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Duplication of PD content is not prohibited at DYK, and is perfectly acceptable in my view, so long as the source meets WP:V and is appropriately wikified etc. However, in this particular article I found a couple of sentences duplicated from mcdonaldobservatory.org, where I could find no information about copyright status, so without further clarification I don't think this one can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FTR, the current "rules" at WP:Did you know state: "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see our longstanding position on free data sources was altered by Rjanag a couple of months ago, apparently without discussion. To make a significant change to DYK practice like that would certainly require considered debate, and I for one would be strongly opposed to any such change, so in the meantime I have restored (and clarified) the original position. Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've done a lot of work on the article now, and it's past my bedtime. It turns out that almost the entire article was copied from various sources, including not only NASA PD material, but also copyrighted sources like the National Geographic website. I think I've eliminated all of the copyvios, but it's not clear to me if this page of NASA data reports is PD, since most of the reports are from non-NASA sources. If it's not PD, a check is still needed to make sure that the content from that source is not "too close." (I'm too bleary-eyed to do that right now.) --Orlady (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've spent more time with the article now, and in view of the extent of my rewrites, someone else needs to do a final review. The article still contains some verbatim wording from this NASA article (particularly in the lead section), but otherwise I think it's reasonably original. The hook fact is supported by sourcing (particularly that NASA article), but the specific sentence in the article doesn't have a citation. My personal preference would be for an alternative hook focused on the interpretations of the burst's origin:
 * ALT1 ... that one of the two theories about the Christmas gamma ray burst places it just 10,000 light years from Earth, but the other theory indicates a distance of 5.5 billion light years? --Orlady (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hook: (For ALT1): Short enough, interesting. However, the 10,000 light years bit is not sourced directly after the sentence.
 * Article: To follow, as I have a New Year's Eve dinner to go to. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Back. Article: New enough, long enough, referencing is thorough and well formatted. Paraphrasing checks: Fine, fine.
 * Summary: Symbol question.svg Just need to fix up one small issue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Footnote inserted to support ALT1, per Crisco's request on my talk page. That apparently completes the successful review. --Orlady (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Good save. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)