Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of the Pacific Ocean

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Geology of the Pacific Ocean

[edit]
(
)

Gakkel Ridge and other Arctic Ocean bathymetric features

  • Comment: This is an initial expansion, still needs a lot of work but should be OK for DYK.

Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Ipigott (talk), Rosiestep (talk), and Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 08:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC).

  • It has been expanded fivefold 13 days ago which means that expansion began on June 23. Since that is "after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations" the article can be considered as new enough for DYK. It is long enough (7,527 characters). The image is not used in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Try now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably should have done it by myself. The hook is not too long (184 characters). It is cited and very interesting. What about QPQ?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem is the image is of the Arctic Ocean floor not in the Pacific and the Gakkel Ridge is not a "plate". Vsmith (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark. I don't think it is a problem regarding the text of the hook, but I guess the image should be replaced or removed? Dr. Blofeld?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In terms of accuracy it does seem a problem as the 2.5 cm/yr and the 15 cm/yr "speeds" are actually spreading rates accross the respective ridges rather than plate speeds. Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting remark. Can you help by proposing an alternative hook?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps just reword :
Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It is fine by me. Still very interesting, cited, not too long (187 characters). Dr. Blofeld do you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes that's fine, Vsmith feel free to expand the article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
OK for ALT1, without image.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
? I'm confused by the hook. Is the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean or in the Pacific Ocean? Or is the Arctic Ocean part of the Pacific Ocean? Pls clarify. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Using icon that will hold nomination until clarification made and checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Sorry for overlooking this important detail. What about:
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I really think you want the bolded article as close to the beginning of the hook as you can; ALT1's position was ideal. Any way you can retain the early positioning while incorporating ALT2's new details? Not sure if you'd want to do a comparison (Gakkel only one-sixth as fast), but think about having the fastest first. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that comparison is very hooky. What about ALT3?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The East Pacific Rise article currently shows a different spreading rate. Can the inconsistent info in the relevant articles be somehow harmonized/reconciled, before this fact and the links to these articles get on MainPage, please? BTW, is this the fastest in the world? It's probably hooky enough on its own without the comparison. --PFHLai (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The rate is supported by a USGS ref, whereas the ref for the East Pacific Rise article note likely fails WP:RS (it is a student study site); and the recent change there introduced an error. I've replaced the confused rate and poor source there. Vsmith (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Note plate motion on either side of a ridge are in opposite directions and add to give the spreading rate. Vsmith (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What about QPQ? --PFHLai (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for harmonizing the articles. I will remind the nominator to point to QPQ review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

With the QPQ review added, all of the concerns have been addressed. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Geology_of_the_Pacific_Ocean&oldid=829014748"