Talk:Popigai impact structure

Russia: Physical geography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Popigai impact structure is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help!

Location from Norilsk

Where is Popi really from Norilsk? The page says it's 'just North' of the settlement, but Google Earth says it's over 500 of either one or t'other away from Norilsk. I'm aware that one, other or both could be wrong, so what's the truth? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is at +71° 39' 42.97", +110° 57' 39.59" I've added a link to Google Maps. 70.74.191.229 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Crater Infobox?

Someone may want to apply crater template {{Infobox crater | crater_name = {{SUBST:PAGENAME}} | image_crater = | alt_crater = | caption_crater = | image_bathymetry = | alt_bathymetry = | caption_bathymetry = | location = | coords = {{coord|89|59|59|N|179|59|59|W|region:ZZ_type:waterbody|display =inline,title}} | type = | basin_countries = | length = | width = | area = | depth = | max-depth = | volume = | rim = | elevation = | cities = | reference = }}

--YakbutterT (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trustworthyness of Sources

For a piece of news that will shock the diamond dealing world, there is only one source - the Christian Science monitor. This source is repeated all places online, and they are seemlingly the only ones that know about this. Can someone confirm this from more sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.9.0.125 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"twice as hard"

The article currently states the diamons at Popigai are "twice as hard" as normal and they contain lonsdaleite. Lonsdaleite has a hardness of 6-7 vs diamond at 10. I see the Russian source and various tabloids do say that, but seems such a claim requires a better source. The translated Russian source is hyping the story (is it a WP:RS?) and the tabloids follow along - any fact checking there? Vsmith (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a friendly ip has now modified the text and changed the twice as to 58% harder w/ a ref. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the "lonsdaleite" link, the extreme hardness of pure lonsdaleite crystal is explained there. The 6-7 hardness you mention is because it is usually found with impurities that make it softer. There is no way to actually measure the hardness of the stuff found in the crater, because the usual hardness test of something is to scratch it with a diamond, and in this case you can't. But IIRC they found that drill bits coated with these impact diamonds last longer than bits coated with normal diamonds. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #5 is bogus

This reference goes to an empty domain with ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.250.87 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, url change, thanks - Vsmith (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What type?

Popigai is the best example yet of the formation of a crater of this typeWhat type?--Wetman (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irreverent content

Extraneous irreverent content removed, having to do with comparing content to the content that is compared to the source content of the article i.e. the relationship between C and B when the article uses B to describe A --74.93.100.211 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Popigai crater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed puffery

I removed puffery and exaggerated claims about the diamond deposits here. Very unlikely to be of commercial interest, now or in the future. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impact crater or impact structure

@Paul H.: I assume you have some opinion on this? I would support moving this to "Popigai impact structure". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I agree. I looked at "Popigai Impact Structure and its Diamond-Bearing Rocks" by Victor L. Masaitis, ed., 2019, Springer International Publishing AG, ISBN 978-3-319-77987-4. Its paleo-topographic expression (crater) has been destroyed to the extent that it is best classified as an "impact structure." Paul H. (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

impactor size different in text and infobox?

text says the thing was 8km if chondrite or 5km if rocky, infobox gives 5+-2km. That implies it can't have been 8 at all, but max 7 and that it could have been just 3km! So, which of those is actually in the whatever source was used to get that? It should be at least the same info in the two... 141.138.34.69 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likely impactor was around 6.1km, weighing roughly 500 billion tons, left impact crater of around 90-93km, NASA states impactor was between 5 and 8km, however 6km mark is more likely case. ^[1]

References

^ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148403/russias-crater-of-diamonds

[1] ttps://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148403/russias-crater-of-diamonds

[1]