Template:Did you know nominations/Subduction tectonics of the Philippines

Add links
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Subduction tectonics of the Philippines

(
)
  • ... that the Palawan Microcontinental Block which includes Palawan and Mindanao Islands, is colliding with the Philippine Mobile Belt? "Indenter-tectonics in the Philippines: Example from the Palawan Microcontinental Block - Philippine Mobile Belt Collision". Resource Geology. 55 (3): 189–198 [1]

Moved to mainspace by LkwkarenHKU (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 23:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC).

  • I'll be claiming this for review and hope to finish within the next few days, but for now, I was wondering if a better hook could be presented here. Right now, it's a little dry and basically discusses a fact instead of highlighting something interesting about the topic. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There is still an unresolved deletion nomination of the lead image. This DN needs to close before hook can be promoted. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this can go forward without the image. --evrik (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I propose Alt1 and Alt2 which may not be so dry. On the topic of the image we are not using it in DYK, and I argue that it is not an infringement. I don't think the nominator looked at the images involved. Just confused the credit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The issue now is that ALT1 and ALT2 sound a bit too technical. Maybe the wording could be revised to make them more layman-friendly? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Should we explain what ophiolite means in the hook? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Since ophiolite is linked in the hooks, it can be optional. The issue for me here is more that mentioning that these belts exist or that they're getting younger isn't really eye-catching and still feels dry. I think it might be a better idea to try a hook that doesn't involve the ophiolite stuff as it just might be too technical. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
It sounds okay, but it's unspectacular. Perhaps we can try something as to how the plate tectonics are a factor as to why the region has many volcanoes? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Do the microcontinents also have more hooky names, like "Palawia"? We could probably drop "in a process called subduction". Or describe it:
(I do think we need to qualify the hazard; parts of Yemen are a lot less safe...) HLHJ (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that the alt4-6 would be OK factually, but the reviewer will have to figure out where the article supports those statements! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
ALT5 and ALT6 appear to be mentioned in the lede (with citations, although they seem to be paywalled for me), so it might be good enough for DYK purposes. Considering current events, the timing of this nomination is probably proper. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Not just yet, I was only responding to Graeme's comments about where those ALTs were supported. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Map
About OpenStreetMaps
Maps: terms of use
10km
6miles
none
Narutolovehinata5
Taal Volcano
Note scale. You must be breathing the 2020 Taal Volcano eruption, Narutolovehinata5, when you can't see it; hope it's not too unpleasant, and best wishes for your wellbeing. HLHJ (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @HLHJ: I'm in Manila right now and won't come home until the weekend, so I was able to avoid the worst. It was really scary though since I could see the plume from my house, and the expressways were full of ash. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Nice timing, I hope you've dodged it all. A pyrocumulus punching through the stratopause is spectacular, but from a caldera diameter away... Having your house closed should have reduced the amount of nasties settling inside, too, and the ash corrosion to your cloth, mild steel, and such. HLHJ (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • When CTRL+F-ing, it seems the first ref for the hook (in the lead of the article) only says "All of these trenches are recognized as earthquake generation regions and are natural hazards to the country," and the second ref doesn't use the word "hazard" or "danger" and upon reading doesn't mention potential risks at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Alack, I didn't check the source. It doesn't seem implausible, and if it isn't in the source in some phrasing it may be citable elsewhere; a global geological hazard map, for instance. HLHJ (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies, Graeme Bartlett; I forgot to sign the previous post (belatedly doing so now with the correct timestamp). The ping should go through this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The second ping worked. This bit of the hook "most geologically hazardous regions on Earth" sounds interesting, but when I search for that, I find Nepal, Iran, Kuril Islands, and this very page. So perhaps it is writing to sound senational. so how about this variant?

Text supporting this from the first ref also supports alt4 and this alt7: "Tectonic setting of a composite terrane: A review of the Philippine island arc system":

  • PS Philippines has one l and a double pp. It took me a while to learn that! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Yumul, Graciano P.; Dimalanta, Carla B.; Maglambayan, Victor B.; Marquez, Edanjarlo J. (2008), "Tectonic setting of a composite terrane: A review of the Philippine island arc system", Geosciences Journal, 12 (1): 7, Bibcode:2008GescJ..12....7Y, doi:10.1007/s12303-008-0002-0
  • Full review needed now that the hook seems set. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, are you still interested in reviewing this? Flibirigit (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, real life caught up with me and I no longer have enough time to review this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I am happy to address any issues raised still. So we need a new reviewer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Doing... Starting a full review for nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: No - ?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was moved to mainspace on November 24, and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. Article is neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues detected. No photo is used in this nomination, but the charts used in the article are properly licensed. QPQ requirement is complete. Article has one maintenance tag, and I have a few questions on sourcing and citations below. Multiple hooks are suggested. I will look over each one and post here shortly. Flibirigit (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Outstanding questions

  •  Done In the section "Palawan–Central Philippines collision zone", it appears that the introductory sentence and the three listed items may not be cited. Can either of the citations in the subsequent sentences cover these?
  •  Done In the section "Volcanic arcs", there is a [clarification needed] tag to resolve.
  • In the same section as above, I am unsure of the source of the final sentence in the paragraph. Maybe it's the previous citation?
  •  Done There are a few paragraphs that do not end in a citation. While this is not a DYK failure, it is not clear what it the source of the ending sentences. Please see the sections "Late Oligocene – Early Miocene" and "Formation of Philippine Trench".
  •  Done In the section "Tectonic hazards in the Philippines", there is no citation in the first subsection, "Volcanoes".
  •  Done The use of diagrams is very thorough and adequate. I am curious if any consideration was given for photo of physical features such as volcanoes, trenches, et cetera. This is not a DYK criteria, but a general question.
  •  Done Usually when multiple citations appear, they are in numerical order, such as [1][2][3]. This is not a DYK criteria, but a general suggestion.
I will post comments on the hooks shortly. Flibirigit (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hook comments

  • I agree with the above comments that ALT0, ALT1 and ALT2 are too dry and technical to be appealing to a broad audience. I have struck those hooks. I will analyze the remaining proposed hooks ALT3 to ALT7. Flibirigit (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT3 would be interesting to a broad audience, and is factually correct. I do not see where it is explicity cited in the article though. The final sentence of the section "Palawan Microcontinental Block" is the only place in the article where I can find microcontents and subduction mention in the same sentence, but its not a great match to cite ALT3. The caption for the first image used in the article implies what is mentioned in the hook, but there is no citation in the caption. Flibirigit (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT4 is somewhat interesting, and might appeal to a broad audience. It seems factually correct, but I cannot find any statement in the article that says X leads to Y with respect to the Palawan microcontinent and volcanoes. This could be revisited once the sourcing is more clear in the "Volcanoes" section as mentioned in the questions above. Flibirigit (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT5 is interesting and would appeal to a broad audience. The hook uses the word "disturbances" which does not appear in the article, nor is defined. Citations for the hook are behind a paywall, and would be accepted by AGF. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT6 is interesting and would appeal to a broad audience, and is the best hooks suggested. My only concern here is the wording "most geologically hazardous regions on the planet" in the hook, versus "one of the most hazard-prone regions on Earth, which is frequently affected by volcanic activities, earthquakes and tsunami" in the introduction. It would be best to use more similar wording, specifically the word "geologically". Citations for the hook are behind a paywall, and would be accepted by AGF. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT7 is interesting and would appeal to a broad audience. I cannot find any statement in the article that says X leads to Y with respect to "extensive disturbances in the crust supporting the Philippines" and "produce many hazardous volcanoes and earthquakes" The hook uses the word "disturbances" which does not appear in the article, nor is defined. This could be revisited once the sourcing is more clear in the "Volcanoes" section as mentioned in the questions above. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I have added references and a clarification. For selection of diagrams I suppose you can ask Karen here: user talk:LkwkarenHKU — there probably are photos of volcanoes available. As for trenches, any photo would be a black rectangle, as it is dark down there! I suspect very little photography in the ocean trenches — but really I don't know what's available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the updates. Just one question remains outstanding for sourcing. I did not see any changes which addressed the hook comments listed above. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I have added text to the last sentence in the lead to cover alt7. Note the previous discussion that I was not going to try to prove the other hooks, as some are not factually correct. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
          • ALT7 is now properly cited, mentioned inline, and verified with the sources. A question still remain on the sourcing in the section "Volcanic arcs". Specifically the sentence, "Dating arc-derived rocks can constrain the timing for trench formation along with the tectonic evolution in Cenozoic". Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Graeme Bartlett: It's been a week now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I have moved the reference to the end of the paragraph. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
      • ALT7 is approved as per above discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Subduction_tectonics_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1020743789"