Template:Did you know nominations/Michigan Geological Survey

Michigan Geological Survey

 * ... that the Michigan Geological Survey severed ties to two universities in the 1890s because of perceived harm to the survey, only to become fully administered by WMU in 2011 for its betterment?
 * Reviewed: Brain Activity Map Project
 * Comment: If the reviewer can see a way to tighten up the hook, I'm all for it

Moved to mainspace by Chris857 (talk). Self nominated at 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough and long enough and amply supported by footnotes. QPQ is done. I have some concern, however, about some of the wording and phrasing being too close to the sources, particularly Segall. (See WP:Close paraphrasing.) It's not egregious, but a lot of the phrasing and word choice is very similar, as in this example:
 * Segall: Wadsworth made arrangements with the USGS that enabled the State Survey to devote most of its time and resources to economic geology, while leaving the more purely scientific studies, particularly paleontology, to the USGS.
 * Article: Wadsworth also made arrangements for the Michigan Geological Survey to concentrate on economic geology, leaving scientific study, particularly paleontology, to the United States Geological Survey.
 * I think some judicious editing could make the article more different from that source. As for the hook, I suggest rewording:
 * ALT1: ... that the Michigan Geological Survey severed its university affiliations in the 1890s due to perceived disadvantages of those relationships, but became part of Western Michigan University in 2011? --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to fix spots of close paraphrasing (focusing on Segall, as Allen, Bagg, and Merrill are all PD-pre1923). I like the wording of your suggested hook, especially getting WMU's name in full with a barely-longer hook. Chris857 (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png  Thanks. I've made some additional edits since you left off. I not only worked to reduce close paraphrasing, but I also wanted to add some substance about the survey's work and accomplishments, so the article reads less like a recitation of "begats" in the bible. I think the close paraphrasing concern is resolved, but I think it would be best if this gets another set of eyes before it goes to the prep areas. The new reviewer should look at the close paraphrasing question and the hook fact. Everything else is OK. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I did additional editing on the article to reduce the lingering close paraphrasing issues with Segall. IMO it's OK now. ALT1 hook ref is verified and good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)