Template:Did you know nominations/Climate of Argentina
- 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Climate of Argentina
[edit]- ... that both the highest and lowest temperatures in South America were recorded in Argentina?
- ALT1:
... that the frequency of tornadoes in Argentina is similar to that in North America's Tornado Alley? - ALT2:
... that because Argentina's geomorphic and geographical characteristics make it vulnerable to floods, those such as 1982–83 lasted for more than a year?
- ALT1:
Improved to Good Article status by Ssbbplayer (talk). Self-nominated at 03:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC).
Unfortunately this article was promoted to good article on 4th March so it is therefore out of the 7 day DYK qualification. I am hoping there is a way to over-rule this as I will do the rest of the DYK review on the chance that someone can overlook the timescale issue.- Article is long enough, and is written from a neutral perspective, I could find no evidence of copyright violations and has masses of citations. I like the first suggestion for a hook best and the temperature claims are supported by a reliable reference. I don't believe QPQ needs to be done as I can't find evidence of Ssbbplayer having nominated any articles previously. Well done on your fantastic work with this article, it is brilliant - I hope it can get on the DYK line up! ツStacey (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hook wordings tweaked and trimmed a bit. Common words unlinked. Edwardx (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Improving this article from a mostly uncited article filled with inaccuracies and little info was the most challenging initiative I have ever done so far. I really appreciate that you recognized my efforts. I like the first hook on the record highs and lows. We should go with it. Important note: The records are official WMO records so they are reliable as WMO has a Commission for Climatology which validates the records so it is more reliable than self-published sources. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to complete the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please see above. I did the review. The only issue was that it was out of timescales and we were waiting to see if that could be overlooked? ツStacey (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: There is some overlap in text between this article and Climatic regions of Argentina, which also achieved GA status and was featured on DYK on March 14, 2016. I tried to find the duplicated text on Dup Detector, but am unable to figure out the exact character count of duplications. Is there any other way to do this? I'm assuming that the copied text must be 5x expanded, right? Please advise on the guidelines for this situation. Regarding the nomination date, I would be willing to IAR for a second-time nominator. Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah, thanks for looking at the nomination. Since this is a Good Article, there is no 5x requirement that I know of regarding copied text: the sole requirement I'm aware of for new GAs, beyond a 1500 minimum original prose characters for all articles, is the Good Article listing. From what I can tell, the Climatic regions of Argentina article was started with 75K bytes from here on November 14, 2015, and this article was trimmed by a bit over 40K bytes. That would leave about 35K of overlap, and some/much of that is because there is a section in Climate that covers in less detail what went to Climatic. (The split to make Climatic originally occurred after being recommended in a peer review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. Basic criteria met: newness, length, neutrality, all paragraphs and charts referenced. Unable to check Spanish-language refs for close paraphrasing, but English-language refs do not show close paraphrasing. First hook, which both Staceydolxx and I prefer, is verified and cited inline. I tweaked the hook slightly, and also edited the part in the article where these facts appear to make it clear that these were South American, not world, records. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please see above. I did the review. The only issue was that it was out of timescales and we were waiting to see if that could be overlooked? ツStacey (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
