Template:Did you know nominations/Queen Elizabeth Land

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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Land[edit]

Created/expanded by Charles Forsyth (talk), The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 12:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

At 1,520 characters it just crosses the line, but the article is new enough, long enough and the article and hook are backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Can I suggest including the fact that Queen Elizabeth Land "is about twice the size of the United Kingdom", as stated in the Wikipedia article and in the sourced from BBC News?

OK, how's that then? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd go with ALT1 as being much hookier. I also think that the image is too small at the required size to be used effectively at DYK, nor do I think too many people are sufficiently familiar with Antarctic geography to make it very useful here. Alansohn (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If ALT1 is to be used, an inline source citation must be made in the article for the added "is about twice the size of the United Kingdom" statement. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've taken a look at the cited article, which has between dashes "almost twice the size of the UK". ALT1 needs to include some sort of qualifier, such as "nearly", and I think both article and hook would be better to be a bit less closely paraphrased on this particular fact—"nearly two times" or "nearly double" might work, as would "area" rather than "size". I don't think I'd use "about" in the article; it isn't as clearly on the negative side of the ledger. (I think it reflects poorly on the BBC that their science editor rounds off the size as simply "twice" in his sidebar.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT2 approved: properly sourced and accurate (as is article). ALT1 has been struck. The original hook is accurate, but less interesting than ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)