Template:Did you know nominations/Underground Research Laboratory
- 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) 06:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Underground Research Laboratory[edit]
- ...that the Canadian Underground Research Laboratory was built to test the concept of storing nuclear waste in granite that was over two billion years old?
? Source: Chandler, first two pages
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 15:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
Hi Maury Markowitz, review follows: Article created 8 December; article is of very good length; article is well written; article is cited above the minimum level to reliable sources; there appears to be no overly close paraphrasing of the sources; hook is interesting enough and the source supports it (in fact saying approximately 2.6 billion years old). However I don't think the article currently supports the hook. it mentions the age of the rocks under Whiteshell laboratories as 2.6 billion years old but doesn't mention the age of the rocks at the URL site. I presume that they are constructed on the same rock formation given the close proximity of the sites but this isn't made clear, can it be clarified in the article? In addition a QPQ is required. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- My bad, you're right, its the 4th page of Chandler that says "The granite at the URL is approximately 2,600,000,000 years old." It's actually one huge rock 1400 km2, both the URL and Whiteshell are on it (and lots of other stuff!). Should I update the hook to say over 2 billion? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- And I clarified and added a cite in the article too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- QPQ John S. Nabila. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/John S. Nabila confirmed (though you forgot to sign it!). The article has been updated to show the URL is on the same rock. I think "over 2 billion" would be fine for the hook. Just thinking again about the hook, I think it might be slightly misleading to say "test the storage of nuclear waste" when no nuclear material was ever taken down there. Might it be worded to say "study the feasibility of" or "test the potential storage" or similar? Let me know your thoughts - Dumelow (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good points - see what you think now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/John S. Nabila confirmed (though you forgot to sign it!). The article has been updated to show the URL is on the same rock. I think "over 2 billion" would be fine for the hook. Just thinking again about the hook, I think it might be slightly misleading to say "test the storage of nuclear waste" when no nuclear material was ever taken down there. Might it be worded to say "study the feasibility of" or "test the potential storage" or similar? Let me know your thoughts - Dumelow (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
