Template:Did you know nominations/3D Fold Evolution

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

3D Fold Evolution

(

)

... that a growing anticline can force a stream to abandon its channel to form wind gaps that are progressively lower? Source: from the Keller reference "Geomorphic criteria to determine direction of lateral propagation of reverse faulting and folding." Hook si from :" Multiple wind gaps can be formed from a single river if there is continuous lateral fold growth and the river keeps being deflected, by abandoning its earlier channel and forming a new one around the outside of the developing fold" in the Wind gaps section.

Reviewed: James M. Turner (1 of double)

Moved to mainspace by Jeffreyfung (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 06:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC).

New and long enough. Insufficient in-line citations, with some paragraphs going fully without any cites. This article needs to be wikified a good deal, as it looks extremely unappealing visually due to the placement, size, and frequency of images as well as the unusual formatting for headings, etc. At parts, this reads almost like an essay, especially in the case study portion (which is likely not necessary at all). The hook appears to be accurate, but due to the writing of the article, it's hard to tell where exactly this information appears in the article. After correcting the more general issues, please direct a reviewer to the specific sentence or sentences in the article that support the hook. I have access to the source cited for the hook if anyone needs me to review it. It does seem to support the information, but I'm happy to check again. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sticking the references on, and will make the hook statement more apparent. I have rewritten the statement that supports the hook. I am also trying an image to see if it looks good at the small size. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: This still needs substantial wikification and editing. The images (of which there are many) are huge and jut into the page awkwardly at weird sizes. Large sections are written like an essay, and there are many technical mistakes with the writing (using 2 instead of two, etc). The little things add up quickly here. Additionally, there's a clean-up tag relating to categories on the page, and we can't run any DYKs with clean-up tags. This is far closer to being a fail than a pass. I won't fail this so as to give you both a chance to fix things and a chance to get a second opinion, but these things must be fixed before putting this up for review again or I imagine the next person will fail it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the cleanup tags, as they were useless. Anyone can add better categories if they want, but its not a problem as it stands. Also I have done wikification adding links, and appropriate bolding. I also changed 2 to two etc. I am shrinking and moving images currently. Some of these are WP:MOS complience issues, that are not actually part of WP:DYK rules. The idea is not to set the bar too high for new editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but we do need a minimum level of presentation in order to push this to the main page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I'm assuming by your comment that you considered the level of presentation to still be problematic after Graeme Bartlett's edits on February 19. Have the subsequent edits on February 21 satisfied your concerns, or is there more work to be done? This is now the oldest extant DYK nomination, and I think we need to decide on it one way or the other before much more time has passed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: They've helped, but I still don't believe this is ready for the main page. For instance, "Here, we re-examine the area and account for growing direction of the anticline" is in the first person, which occurs in three other places as well. The entire case study section seems entirely unnecessary to an encyclopedic article, and it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. The last issue there is really shared with the whole article, which seems to be written as if it were a published scientific paper rather than an encyclopedic summary of a topic. We still have issues with the images. Bold captions, radically mis-matched sizes next to each other. The table in "Mode of linkage" has very unusual proportions and looks like a mess. Not all of these issues directly relate to the DYK criteria, but there are enough of them that we'd embarrass ourselves by putting this on the main page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BU Rob13. Graeme Bartlett, these are clearly significant issues that need to be addressed prior to promotion, and need to be done soon. Please let us know whether you plan to do so. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have eliminated 1st person, debolded the captions, removed the text "case study". Also table position is tidied. I don't want the shrink the pictures even more as that will result in unreadable internal text or important detail. Anyone elase is welcome to move the pictures around. I don't know how to get them positioned how I want with image on left and right at the same time. I won't be rewriting the whole article, as that is too much work for me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are still prevalent issues with a clearly unencyclopedic tone in writing. My examples before on tone were by no means exhaustive, and anything short of a holistic copyedit is unlikely to fix the issues to the point where this should be allowed on the main page. As this has sat here so long and all work that is going to be done appears to have been done, I have to decline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)