Template:Did you know nominations/Deicke and Millbrig Bentonite Layers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Miyagawa (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Deicke and Millbrig Bentonite Layers[edit]

Moved to mainspace by T.J.Hebert (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

It's been two months since the nomination and nominator has not done his promised QPQ, I don't think he should have forever. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not even have to do one! However I have now done 2011 Minnesota state government shutdown specifically fr this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you had to do one or not, when you said you would, you incurred a moral obligation to do so in a reasonable period of time. I am thankful that you have now; it shouldn't have taken this note on my part to have goaded you into doing so. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Full review still needed. Note to Daniel Case: the requirement of QPQs for non-self-nominations did not take effect until November 21, 2014; a QPQ was not needed for this nomination, made days before the change, though Graeme Bartlett is to be commended for providing one anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
See my reply above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset — T.J.Hebert: I've given the article a copy edit, fixing stuff like grammar and punctuation and changing the lead to incorporate the word "layer" instead of "bed" to match the title, and changed the citation style from manual to CS1 to make the Harvard citations work. There's quite a bit of unsourced content in the article; I've placed {{citation needed}} templates where these appear, but the author hasn't been active since December 2014, so I doubt these will be met. Otherwise, the hook checks out good and the article is new enough (from the time of nomination). Looks to be neutral, and I couldn't detect plagarism (all of the citations are offline). QPQ is also good. 23W 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have taken care of the citations needed tags by more citations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Graeme Bartlett: Apologies for not pinging you, I didn't see you were the one who nominated it. The changes look good to me (always good to have more citations) and since nothing has changed substance wise, I'll pass this under good faith. 23W 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)