Template:Did you know nominations/Earth's circumference
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Earth's circumference[edit]
- ... that Earth's circumference around the poles is almost exactly 40,000 km and 21,600 (i.e.,360 × 60) nautical miles long, because it was used to define those units of measurement? Source: Flying Magazine. April 2008. pp. 90–. ISSN 0015-4806.: "The kilometer, which is the foundation of the entire SI or “metric” system, was originally intended to be 1/10,000th of a quadrant of a meridian — that is, 1/40,000th of the earth's polar circumference — and was established as such in 1793... The nautical mile, like the kilometer, is a unit based on the dimensions of the earth. It is the length of one minute of arc along a meridian. (The meridians are the lines that run from pole to pole on the globe; the other ones are called parallels, and minutes of arc on them shrink toward the poles.) One minute of arc is 1/21,600th of a full circumference, and so the polar circumference of the earth... is 21,600 nautical miles."
Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 18:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC).
- @Onceinawhile:
In case you missed it, Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters
. Right now Earth's circumference is only 522 characters of "readable prose size". Umimmak (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Umimmak: many thanks. I was still building the article - my fault for posting here before it was ready. I have finished now, but need to await the outcome of an AfD. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: okay thanks for the heads up. Ping me once that has been resolved and I'll go through the review. Umimmak (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Umimmak: the AFD is closed and the article is much more fulsome now. I will update the QPQ shortly. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: Any update on a QPQ? SL93 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @SL93: QPQ now done. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also the "source: to come" Umimmak (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Umimmak: Now added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: Any update on a QPQ? SL93 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Umimmak: the AFD is closed and the article is much more fulsome now. I will update the QPQ shortly. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: okay thanks for the heads up. Ping me once that has been resolved and I'll go through the review. Umimmak (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Umimmak: many thanks. I was still building the article - my fault for posting here before it was ready. I have finished now, but need to await the outcome of an AfD. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile:
@Onceinawhile: Thank you for your patience with me over the holidays. Review is forthcoming:
- New enough at time of nomination. Long enough, even subtracting text originally written for other articles.
- Article is neutral in tone. All images are appropriately licensed. No apparent copyright violations. Earwig just picks up text from other Wikipedia articles, but there is proper attribution in the edit history.
- Every non-lead paragraph needs a citation -- there are a couple one-sentence "paragraphs"; either add a citation, incorporate them into another paragraph, or expand the paragraphs with referenced statements.
- You've added a source in your DYK nomination, but you haven't actually added a reference for this statement in the article itself. Ideally you'd have a source for the judgement that it's
almost exactly
that number of units as well. - Hook is properly formatted, and I think interesting for a general audience, although I wonder if there might be ways to rewrite it -- perhaps being explicit about what the "them" is which is being defined (i.e., those particular units of distance). I'm not sure if the use of
x
for multiplication in360 x 60
follows WP:⋅. - QPQ is done.
Please fix the issue regarding the lack of reference in the article for the text supporting the hook and for the two unreferenced non-lead paragraphs and ping me. Everything else seems fine. Umimmak (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Umimmak: thank you for your review and for your patience with my response. I believe I have now addressed all the points raised - both in the article and the book. Best regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile:, okay all paragraphs now have citations, and the hook is cited as well. I'm still not sure if the hook is the most clearly written, maybe spelling out the actual number
21,600 (i.e., 360 × 60)
would be useful? Also you need to correct ...? to?
. But everything else looks good.
Umimmak (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Umimmak: thank you – all done. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile:, okay all paragraphs now have citations, and the hook is cited as well. I'm still not sure if the hook is the most clearly written, maybe spelling out the actual number
- @Umimmak: thank you for your review and for your patience with my response. I believe I have now addressed all the points raised - both in the article and the book. Best regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
