Template:Did you know nominations/Ames crater

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ames crater

(

)

... that Ames crater, in Major County, Oklahoma, has produced more oil and gas since its discovery in 1991 than any other astrobleme in the United States?

5x expanded by Bruin2 (talk). Self nominated at 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC).

I appreciate your tremendous work in bringing the article from the stub class to this level by adding informative details but you nominated the article on 24 May, 9 days after the 5x expansion began.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We can accept this on the date issue. You're only talking about 4 days past the deadline, and WP:DYKSG#D9 gives us the leeway The immediate problem is the copyvio in the sentence that relates to the hook:

Article: The site is one of only six oil-producing craters in the United States. It is among the largest producing craters producing 17.4 million barrels of oil and 79.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Source: The Ames crater impact site is one of only six oil-producing craters in the United States. It is among the largest producing craters producing 17.4 million barrels of oil and 79.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas

The rest of that section also has some uncomfortable close paraphrasing from the same source. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy comments. I have revised the closing paragraph and made some other edits to resolve the close paraphrasing issue. Does mentioning the specific source of the production data within the text help accomplish this? Are other changes needed? Bruin2 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Meets the 5x expansion criteria, no close paraphrasing detected, has at least 1 inline citation per para and the hook is cited in the article. Good to go.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the close paraphrasing issues have not yet been adequately resolved - compare for example "then rebounded in the center, creating an uplift. As the sea deposited layers of sediment, other geological movements tilted the formation slightly" with "then rebounded in the center, leaving an uplift at the point of impact. Later, as the sea deposited layer after layer of sediment on top, other geologic forces caused the land to tilt". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the paragraph inquestion, which I think should resolve the issue of close paraphrasing. Please have another look to assure that I have retained the essence of how the crater was formed. Bruin2 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that a QPQ review has not yet been supplied, and will be required for this nomination to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but there are still problematic passages in the article: compare for example "many geologists believed that impact craters were unlikely to contain petroleum. Wells had been drilled near the crater site since the 1960s, but none had been drilled within the crater" with "Many geologists had believed impact craters unlikely locations for petroleum... Although wells had been drilled nearby, no one had attempted to reach deep into the crater." There are also instances where the cited source does not support the given text - for example, I'm not seeing "There are 117 known sites in North America, Oil and gas are produced by only 11 of these" anywhere in the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)