Template:Did you know nominations/Puna Geothermal Venture

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) 05:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Puna Geothermal Venture edit

(

)

Lava fountaining at the edge of the Puna Geothermal Venture facility

... that a unique geological formation, including 1050°C (1922°F) dacitic magma, was encountered by Puna Geothermal Venture in 2005 when drilling a new geothermal energy well? Source: [1] [2]
- ALT1:... that Puna Geothermal Venture, a geothermal energy plant in Hawaii, was partially overrun by lava (pictured) during the 2018 lower Puna eruption? Source: [3] [4]
- ALT2:... that a unique geological formation, including dacitic magma at least 1050°C (1920°F), was encountered at Puna Geothermal Venture in 2005 when drilling a new geothermal energy well?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Klinger (horse)

Created by Jusdafax (talk), AHeneen (talk), Phoenix7777 (talk), and Adam850 (talk). Nominated by AHeneen (talk) at 04:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

Review Tisquesusa (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Article

New –
Long enough –
Within policy –
Comments - solve website in infobox using the URL template, solve ref 9, the "geology" chapter doesn't talk about geology, more about the geothermal part, but that's a minor comment.

Hook

Format –
Content - first hook is best, it is the uniqueness of the dacitic magma in an oceanic basaltic setting that is the interesting part
Other - maybe combine the two into "that unique dacitic magma was encountered by Puna Geothermal Venture in 2005, in 2018 damaged by the lower Puna eruption ...?"
QPQ – 24 credits given
Image - - USGS, public domain

@Tisquesusa: It is not clear from your review whether this nomination is approved or not. In future, please use the check marks {{y}} and {{n}} to check off the criteria, and the DYK icon just for your summation. It's easier for the promoter and the bot. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I filled in the citation for ref 9 and shortened the URL in the infobox. The geology section is about the subsurface of the site (it's in Kilauea East Rift Zone, basaltic rock, wells rely on permeability of two fracture zones). I expanded the subsection title to "Geology of geothermal reservoir" just for clarity. As for the combined hook, I don't think there is a good way of combining the two facts concisely and remaining interesting. I added ALT2, which fixes a couple minor issues in the original proposed hook: the magma wasn't simply 1050°C, it was at least 1050°C, and 1050°C is an even figure that is probably rounded, so I rounded the conversion from 1922°F to 1920°F. AHeneen (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've renamed the subsection to "Kapoho Geothermal Reservoir" (the name of the geologic feature below the surface) and moved it from a subsection of the "Facilities" section to a stand-alone section [5]. @Tisquesusa: please finish the review and if you approve, use the checkmark that appears in the edit window. AHeneen (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been over a month with no further review; calling on a new reviewer to take over. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is mostly a formality, but as Tisquesusa's issues were mostly suggestions instead of actual concerns, they weren't major points against the nomination, and in any case they appear to have been addressed. Giving this the tick. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)