Template:Did you know nominations/Sharyn Canyon


 * 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 4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sharyn Canyon

 * ... that over several millennia of weathering action, the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) has formed strange, attractive and colourful shapes and sizes, a much smaller version of the Grand Canyon, but impressive?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher John O'Neill

5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 06:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg New enough (5x expansion began on November 23, 2015), long enough (3,447 characters "readable prose size"), fully referenced. AGF on offline hook.  Image on Commons with appropriate licence. QPQ done. Good to go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg "Strange", "attractive", and "impressive" are all subjective words, and thus not NPOV. The plural of "millennium" is "millennia" by the way. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected the plural. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want the subjective words deleted and alt hook suggested? Nvvchar . 02:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, an ALT would be good, seeing as there would be little left of the original hook if the subjective wording were removed. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  03:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following two hooks. Nvvchar . 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

ALT1 hook ...that the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) formed over several millennium of weathering action, is a much smaller version of the Grand Canyon, but it is equally impressive? ALT2 hook ... that the geology of the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) is sedimentary red sandstone, which subjected to the "atmogenic process", has resulted in steep slopes with formations of columns and arches?
 * ALT1 shares the same issues as the original hook, albeit to a lesser extent. As for ALT2, unfortunately reference 5 is a Wikipedia mirror (see PediaPress); and thus not a reliable source. Reference 6 is acceptable, but as far as I can tell, does not fully support all the content in the hook. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the objectionable ref. Modified the hook with an additiona references as:  Nvvchar . 02:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT3 ... that the geology of the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) is sedimentary red sandstone, which subjected to the atmogenic erosion, has "weird and colourful formations"?
 * Do you want me to address any more issues? Nvvchar . 15:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * : REVIEW COMPLETED - The following review was completed by Esemono 
 * Green check.svg QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher John O'Neill
 * Green check.svg Article was 5x expanded by Nvvchar on November 23, 2015 and has 3424 characters (596 words) "readable prose size"
 * Green check.svg NPOV
 * Green check.svg Hook ALT3 is interesting and sourced with Ref 2="weird and colourful formations" & Ref 6="Charyn Canyon ... the result of the sandstone (sedimentary rocks) atmogenic erosion."
 * Green check.svg Every paragraph sourced
 * Green check.svg Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio
 * Symbol confirmed.svg GTG -- Esemono (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I don't think it's suitable to use subjective material such as that used in ALT3. Also atmogenic erosion may need a wikilink or some explanation, as it leave most readers clueless.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  07:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have explained "atmogenic process} in the article with this reference . I have modified the hook to ALT 4 ... that the geology of the Sharyn Canyon (pictured) is sedimentary red sandstone, which subjected to the atmospheric forces, has unusual formations?  Nvvchar . 15:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of this content is not supported by the sources. It doesn't say that the sandstone is red, and nowhere does it say that the formations are "unusual". --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added the book reference (ref 1). I had changed the "weird and colourful formations" to mean "unusual". I will change it to "sculpted formations" if you agree. For this also ref 1 is relevant. Thanks. Nvvchar . 04:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg "unusual" is acceptable. Let's not go with sculpted formations. Red sandstone is in the source.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nvvchar . 06:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)