Template:Did you know nominations/Fumarole mineral

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) 06:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Fumarole mineral

(

)

Scanning electron microscope image of fumarole minerals at Tolbachik volcano

... that volcanic fumaroles deposit over 240 individual fumarole minerals (pictured)? Among all known volcanoes, Tolbachik is the world-record holder in both diversity of fumarolic minerals andthe number of new mineral species discovered at onevolcano. Summarizing the available literature and ourdata, we evaluate the number of valid mineral speciesreliably determined to date in Tolbachik fumaroles asabout 240
ALT1: ... that volcanic fumaroles deposit over 240 distinct, rare fumarole minerals (pictured)? Among all known volcanoes, Tolbachik is the world-record holder in both diversity of fumarolic minerals andthe number of new mineral species discovered at onevolcano. Summarizing the available literature and ourdata, we evaluate the number of valid mineral speciesreliably determined to date in Tolbachik fumaroles asabout 240

Comment: "At least" since the number 240 only refers to Tolbachik's minerals but other volcanoes have 'em as well. Also, a lot of this DYK is predicated on the spectacular images, so I'd like to see the image (or another of the article) used on the main page if at all possible. QPQ will be provided ASAP.

Moved to mainspace by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 14:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

The article looks good. Its content meets DYK requirements and there are no copyright or other policy issues. All the images are free and appropriately licensed, and I agree that one of these images would look very cool on the main page. I have a few comments about the hook itself, though:

The hook says "over 240 individual fumarole minerals", but the number given in the article and cited there is "at least 210". Though it's clear in the nomination and the article that the number is a lower bound (other volcanoes would have them), this number should be consistent. If different numbers are given in different sources, choose the one that is most recent or most reflective (of all sources) and stick to it.
I think the hook would sound slightly more interesting if the wording could be changed to emphasize the quantity ("over 240" sets the stage for this). I'd suggest changing "individual" to "distinct" (over 240 distinct minerals), "different" (over 240 different minerals), or something similar.
Additionally, perhaps you could mention in the hook that these are rare minerals. (I'm not sure about the exact wording for this, though; it would be in addition to or instead of one of the adjectives above.) This could also provide emphasis.

ComplexRational (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: QPQ is here. Do note that I have expanded the article a bit since you made your review as I didn't have time for all the edits last week. The 210/240 thing will have to wait until I get another copy of the source, but penned up an ALT1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Now the article features the number 240. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for providing the QPQ and making sure the numbers are consistent. I'm striking ALT0 per this thread, and barring any minor refinements to the wording, ALT1 with the image looks good to go. ComplexRational (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)