Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of China


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Geology of China

 * ... that the early study of Chinese geology led to the idea of a changeable climate and that drinking dissolved fossils was good for your health?  Source: Zhang, Dazheng; Faul, Carol (1988). "A history of geology and geological education in China (to 1949)". Earth Sciences History. 7 (1): 27–32. ISSN 0736-623X.:Page 28 “…he reasoned that bamboo plants have been buried by sediments in an ancient time when that place had been low, damp, gloomym and suitable for bamboo growth.” Page 29 “They were sometimes dissolved in vinegar and drunk; as Needham points out they were at least a source of calcium.”
 * ALT1:... that ...? 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: Athelstan Rendall (pilot)
 * Comment: 3rd self nomination

5x expanded by Dushan Jugum (talk). Self-nominated at 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article has been recently expanded but not quite enough, I'm afraid. By my count, it has not yet been expanded fivefold. It seems to be about 500 characters short. Can this be fixed before I move on with the review? Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that Surtsicna. I have added some text, should be good now. I don't know what I was counting then. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)).
 * The article is now sufficiently long in addition to being new. The sources check out, and the hook is of appropriate length. QPQ done. There is one more problem to fix: more inline citations. Some paragraphs do not contain any, which is not alright for DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All done Surtsicna. I will get better at this I promise. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)).

Now that the problem is fixed, another review is needed.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC))
 * It's been three weeks since Dushan responded to your comments. Are you planning to complete the review? -Zanhe (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Dushan Jugum, I missed your ping somehow. The few inline citations was also that was missing. Everything checks out now; I can assume good faith with the offline sources, which do not cover the hook. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All good Surtsicna, I am still a little ignorant of the process or I just would have pinged you again. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)).
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, and while it is an impressive expansion, it is not a 5x expansion. Before expansion began on March 25, the article was 4002 characters long. As of today, the article is 17,279 characters, a 4.3x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Yoninah, I get 3235 B going up to 17,000 B. I have:


 * // User:Dr pda/prosesize
 * mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADr+pda%2Fprosesize.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
 * in my common.js. As I am getting different numbers to both my reviews, I have a strong suspicion I am doing something wrong. Is there a right way? (happy to let this DYK die, but this is a good time for me to learn). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)).
 * I use the Javascript cut and paste tool. It's a little tedious, especially on long articles, but I copy everything into the box and delete the bracketed footnote numbers to get a character count on each version of the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Found the problem Yoninah. User:Dr pda/prosesize, while accepted by the DYK Wikipedia page, does not count Bullet Pointed text. Your method does, I think this is fair “Bullet Pointed text” can be seen as "readable prose". I have thought about ways of expanding the page and have decided my energy is best put elsewhere. Please fail it, if you wish or what ever is the next step. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)).
 * Symbol voting keep.svg you're absolutely right. I normally don't count bulleted text, but since it seemed rather lengthy, I did. However, it wasn't sourced. If that's all that's holding up a 5x expansion, I'm willing to overlook it. Restoring tick for offline sources per Surtsicna's review. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)