Template:Did you know nominations/Geological history of the Precordillera Terrane


 * 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) 05:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Geological history of the Precordillera Terrane

 * ... that the Precordillera Platform in Argentina originally broke off from rocks that are now in south-eastern United States? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
 * Reviewed: Ouki

Moved to mainspace by Consequencewayne (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 03:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC).


 * My apologies, but I do not think this is ready to go on the main page. DYK does not require stellar prose, but the article should have its basic grammar in place. A grammatical error in the first sentence does not augur well: and the rest of the page has numerous errors, too. I appreciate that this is a technical subject, difficult to write about: but even if I don't understand the geology, I should understand the english. Furthermore, although the hook is sourced, the article later says that it is actually in dispute. Even if I were to put this into a queue, it would likely be ripped apart on WT:DYK by Fram or TRM, and honestly I can't support it in its current state myself. So let's just avoid the drama, get the language into shape, and then promote it: there's no deadline. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is part of a student project and I guess the author has moved on to other parts of the course. If the article does not conform to DYK requirements, and I note there are some unreferenced paragraphs besides what you noticed, it could be rejected altogether for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will give this a copyedit tomorrow. However good grammar and writing is not a DYK requirement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Given Vanamonde's comments, I'm superseding the tick here. Contrary to what Graeme Bartlett states, articles for the main page must be adequately written; if it has a significant number of errors or problematic sentences such that it needs a copyedit, then that should be addressed. WP:DYKSG covers this (though indirectly), and a certain level of quality has been demanded for many months now, if not a couple of years. I know I've requested copyedits before articles could be promoted, and they've been done without complaint, frequently by making a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Copyedit complete. Paragraphs have references added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vanamonde for catching those issues. I'm not sure how reject DYK reviews are handled - should I be doing a re-review at this point, or passing it off to a fresh set of eyes to have a look?  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there is a hard and fast guideline here. Some aspects of your original review still hold true, obviously: other aspects need to be checked again. Since you have looked at the article once already, you might find it easier than a completely uninvolved editor: but that is up to you, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like the major grammatical issues have been corrected, although I'm still not sure if "Precordillera" as it's used here should be preceded by the article "the" or not. As for the matter of the disputed claim made by the hook I propose:
 * ALT1 "... that the Precordillera Platform in Argentina may have originally broken off from rocks that are now in the southeastern United States?
 * I think this may be fair, as scholarly opinions suggesting that this Precordillera did not break off from Laurentia are apparently in the minority (Assuming Good Faith an accurate representation of the inaccessible cites is present here). AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this may be fair, as scholarly opinions suggesting that this Precordillera did not break off from Laurentia are apparently in the minority (Assuming Good Faith an accurate representation of the inaccessible cites is present here). AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT1 hook, and to see whether the original hook should be struck due to the issues raised above. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg for ALT1. Taking over undisputed points from the first review. The prose is acceptable, if very dense and technical. The added "may" in ALT1 seems well justified, given various other theories, even if they are not widely held. Probably an interesting article for geologists, & the hook works for all. GTG. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)