Template:Did you know nominations/Metamorphic facies of subduction zones

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 G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Metamorphic facies of subduction zones

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that metamorphic facies of subduction zones are characterized by low temperatures and high-ultrahigh pressures?

• ALT1: ... that as rocks are compressed as they are sink down below an oceanic trench, they release water that caused volcanoes to form above?
• ALT2:... that as rocks are compressed, sinking down into an oceanic trench, they release water that causes volcanoes to form above?
• Reviewed: Satellite Kite, Instruments of Mercy double

Created by Eleanor W Smith (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

• The article was moved to mainspace two days before nom so it passes "newness" requirement. Article is long enough and doesn't have apparent copyvios or neutrality problems. The main hook is 115 and ALT1 is 135. The main hook seems to be an amalgam of two different sentences in the lede so I'm not sure it's accurate. I also don't have access to the cited book. ALT1 seems to derive from an unsourced assertion also in the lede. ALT1 also oversimplifies what the article is about so I wouldn't support it, anyway. QPQ is yet to be done, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have now added a review I did. Ans also added a reference to alt1 statement in lede. Template:Did you know nominations/Satellite Kite, Instruments of Mercy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok. QPQ is done. Citation was added and it supports ALT1, so I'm striking the main hook. I'll withdraw my complaint about the oversimplification in the interests of progress. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• - ALT 1 doesn't appear to make sense. It has caused debate in our household for suggestions of what it could mean and how to change it! As we couldn't reach consensus, could the nominator (Graeme Bartlett) or reviewer (Chris troutman) please have a look and change/ remove the words causing confusion? ツStacey (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I added ALT2 with clearer wording. That the hook makes sense is not criteria for this task. Any cited nonsense that's short enough is typically fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes ALT2 is clearer and better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• New reviewer needed for ALT2. (Struck ALT1 due to previous objections.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• This article is new enough and long enough. The ALT2 hook is acceptable and has sufficient inline sourcing in my view. The article is neutral but the topic is complex for the layman to understand. The article is full of geologic jargon and I edited the opening sentence to help clarify the lead (and correct a typo). As the sources are not available to me, I was not able to assess whether there were any close paraphrasing or copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)