Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of Kimberley (Western Australia)

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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
No progress on this nomination in over a month and it does not seem that the issues could be addressed.

DYK toolbox

Geology of Kimberley (Western Australia)

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Timothy D. Chow (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 07:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

  • The scope of this article feels odd; it's about geology, a craton and associated features, but its overt scope is a geopolitical unit, leading to the inclusion of a bit of content on major towns etc. (cited to other Wikipedia articles, which is not to WP:RS standards). Though now uncited, that content is fairly irrelevant. Would a rename work?
The article has excellent content, but needs a through copyedit if not a rewrite. The language is more suited to an academic paper than an encyclopedia article, and the English needs polishing. I have begun this work, but the WP:Guild of Copyeditors or the WP:WikiProject Geology might be a better place to recruit eyes. The article is severely overlinked, with basic terms linked repeatedly, sometimes to inappropriate targets (articles on other uses of the words). I'm not sure why it uses an island infobox template. HLHJ (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Regional geology articles and books usually do have a small section on the general geography, so that humans know how it relates to other things they are familiar with, and it will set the scope of area for the study. The scope really is the geology, not the political unit, though the geological structure has partly defined the name and extent of the area it covers. I added a reference to support the general into, so it's not now unreferenced. But here is a hook alternative that makes it clear that the linked article is about the geology and not the region. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • alt1 * ... that the Kimberley Basin has the youngest rocks in the Kimberley region of Western Australia even though they are 1.8 billion years old?
Thank you, Graeme Bartlett. It's now all cited, though I still need the supporting quote for the hook. I've done a more extensive copyedit; there are a lot of parts that need clarifying, and I may have misunderstood the text at some points.
Contrasting the Weald with Weald Basin, the first is about a geographic area defined by its geology, the second about a geologic feature. Both seem like good scopes, and the content on how the human beings living in the Wald have been affected by the geology is also excellent. This article's title says that its scope is the geology of a politically-defined area, which seems odd. That why I suggested a rename of the article, not the hook; sorry if I wasn't clear. It's still very overlinked; EG metamorphism being linked multiple times in a single sentence. There are some problems with the image accreditation which I've raised with the author on their talk page. A good article, but there are a few issues. HLHJ (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Having now had time to look at the content of the article, and read sources, I'm rejecting both proposed hooks as untrue. There are lots of younger rocks in this region, like the conspicuous Devonian reefs, which are about a quarter the age. The article simple didn't cover post-Paleoproterozoic geology. This is a major omission, like writing History of Britain and only covering the Early Mesolithic. I've expanded the lede outline to reference later events, and templated for expansion. Helloheart has started fixing the overlinking, which is great. I'm not sure this article is likely to be fixed up enough, soon enough, for DYK; I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I'm not volunteering to do all the work required, I'm afraid. HLHJ (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me what's going on with the early versions of the article? it's a completely different draft, for an article which doesn't seem to exist anywhere now, and the content looks useful. HLHJ (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I am guessing that our writer: Timothy D. Chow started with one topic in his sandbox and then switched. But there are no references. If there were references I could do a history split and make a different article out of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Can one draftify a history split? HLHJ (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I can delete the page; restore the revisions about Hong Kong; rename; then restore the Kimberley revisions. Would you like me to do this? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for offering, Graeme Bartlett, I'd have no idea how to do that. While not in any way urgent, it sounds like a good idea, and the topic is notable, if mostly because it's a tourist attraction.[1][2][3] There are probably more sources in Cantonese and Mandarin, too. We should mention this to the author; but he seems to be a bit busy just now as he isn't responding to talk page posts. If it sits in drafts for awhile, that's better than losing it; we could link it from Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark and Tung Ping Chau. HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
OK now we have Draft:Geology of Tung Ping Chau. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I've added some more sources and text. It's still not very fleshed-out, but could probably technically go in the mainspace now if anyone gets impatient. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Geology_of_Kimberley_(Western_Australia)&oldid=1130799952"