Template:Did you know nominations/High pressure terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone

High pressure metamorphic terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone

 * ... that high pressure terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone contain crustal rock that have been buried at great depth and then returned to the surface?
 * Comment: part of Education Program:Louisiana State University/GEOL 4066: Plate Tectonics (Fall 2013)
 * Comment: part of Education Program:Louisiana State University/GEOL 4066: Plate Tectonics (Fall 2013)

Moved to mainspace by Chasebill (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 09:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC).


 * I am working on review of this DYK nom. --Orlady (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article is long enough and new enough. It's reasonably well footnoted. I've read some of the sources in full and others as abstracts, and I haven't seen copyvio. However, have a bunch of concerns about the article. First off, I'm not convinced that the title effectively describes the scope. The article seems to be about the tectonic interpretation of some elements of the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone -- it's not solely about "high pressure terranes" (which I think would more typically be described as "high pressure metamorphic" tarranes -- the term "high pressure terrane" seems to be almost unique to this Wikipedia article) in the suture zone, but also about ophiolite suites and about not-so-high-pressure metamorphic rocks. To the extent that the article is about the interpretation of that zone, it would work better as part of the Bangong suture article than as a stand-alone article. Also, my reading of the sources leads me to understand that some of the interpretations of the geologic/tectonic history that are presented in the article as fact are not actually established interpretations, but instead are the hypotheses advanced by a particular group of researchers. (Several recent papers, like this one, discuss the potential for multiple interpretations of this kind of geologic evidence.) It is OK for Wikipedia to describe current interpretations of scientific information, but Wikipedia should not present tentative interpretations as fact. I'm also not thrilled with the way the article is organized and presented (it's structured more like a scientific paper than an encyclopedia article), but those kinds of problems are not as significant. I'll be interested in the article creator's reactions/responses to my comments.
 * If the issues with the article are satisfactorily resolved, the proposed hook fact should be revised to be something like:
 * ALT1 ... that high pressure metamorphic terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone may contain crustal rock that was buried at great depth and then returned to the surface? --Orlady (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Chasebill is keen to fix the issues so please give a chance! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that. Since it took 19 days to get this nomination reviewed, I think we owe Chasebill ample time to respond. --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see some edits to the article on December 11. Do those fix the issues, or is there more to be done? (I imagine the semester is just about over...) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has been edited -- and the edits are good -- but my basic concerns haven't been resolved yet. --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have renamed the article as suggested. Merging to an article on Bangong-Nujiang Suture could be a good idea, but it does not help any DYK.  So I will leave this off for now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article rename helps a bit by introducing the word "metamorphic". However, it's not clear that all of the terranes described in the article are truly "high pressure metamorphic terranes". "High pressure" is defined as ecologite-facies metamorphism. However, some (possibly most) of the rocks discussed in the article are either amphibolite facies metamorphic rocks (lower pressure than eclogite facies) or ophiolites (which aren't necessarily metamorphic). --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * well what about terranes along the Bangong-Nujiang Suture Zone? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though Orlady's issues are not primarily with the title of the article, though it is a problem, but with the article's contents. One thing that stands out for me from her original review is "Wikipedia should not present tentative interpretations as fact"; if this is still a significant issue with the article after nearly a month, and if there are no plans to address it very soon, then it's probably time to close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * yes this is not something that I can fix, so may as well close this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Closing per nominator, who cannot fix issues raised in review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)