- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Piercing point edit
- ... that piercing points are used by geologists to find out how much a fault has moved?
- ALT 1*... that some rocks hundreds of kilometers apart, called piercing points, can tell geologists how much a fault has moved?
- Comment: First time doing this, please let me know if more is needed or if I screwed up! Also, open to rewordings on the hook itself.
Created/expanded by Qfl247 (talk). Self nom at 06:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is currently classified as a stub -- it's long enough not to be, but maybe doesn't cover the issue in enough depth? It can't be a stub for DYK. It would be good if the article could point to more recent academic research to support the article. Good web cites, but it seems important to at least have the definition confirmed by a reliable source. New and over 1,500 words, and good image. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I added the stub tag... will remove. Will work on a better, more recent refs too. Thanks! QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 05:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for writing an interesting article that taught me something I didn't know! I'll check back, but hopefully others will weigh in too. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting article but the sourcing needs work. I don't think the About.com cites are considered wp:reliable sources. And the unpublished material is not. On another matter, the first time this method was used is talked about in two different sentences that are redundant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed sourcing (found a good def from and old geology book of mine) and fixed redundant part. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, that should work. Still have concerns about notes five six and seven, partly because they are not in standard citation form but mostly because they may not be from a publisher known for fact checking or are self published. Also would you consider an alternative DYK about the huge km's of slip shown? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, worked on those issues above. I added a more "scholarly" refs to go along with the 'less' scholarly if that is OK... Also, added alt hook, but feel free to suggest another alt/rewording.
- I like the alt hook and am very satisfied with the new sourcing. I think that a balance of scholarly and less so is acceptable. I think it's good now. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, worked on those issues above. I added a more "scholarly" refs to go along with the 'less' scholarly if that is OK... Also, added alt hook, but feel free to suggest another alt/rewording.
AGF on the prior review and the non-web based sourcing. The Alt 1 might need work (isn't it a feature not a rock?) but I think there is enough there to work with. I did put the websites into citation form, as they are arguably by "expert" authors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)