Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing issues remain after nearly five months

Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield

[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created/expanded by Aymatth2 (talk). Self nom at 02:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Suitable length and well sourced (DYK has a citation). The hook invites the reader to find out more; "only"? Gives good facts. Well-written. --Peter Talk to me 18:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The hook isn't grammatical. Secretlondon (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I am blind to the problem. Suggestions? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It's the "which.." which looks tagged onto the end of the sentence. Secretlondon (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
That is because the "which" clause is indeed tagged onto the end of the sentence, but how about ALT1 below, which is two sentences joined with a "but"? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that the Waterberg Coalfield holds 50 billion tons of coal, but in 2005 the only working mine was the Grootegeluk Coal Mine?
What about ALT2 ... that the Waterberg Coalfield holds 50 billion tons of coal, but in 2005 the only working mine was the one at Grootegeluk? Secretlondon (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
ALT2 avoids some of the coal-coal-mine-coal-mine repetition, but there is no such place as Grootegeluk. "Grootegeluk", Afrikaans for "great happiness", is the name of the mine. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Three QPQ reviews for 2 DYK candidates? How about Ellisras Basin? To include as part of a triple hook? --PFHLai (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Those were three short, easy reading ones. But I suppose it could be:
ALT3 ... that the Waterberg Coalfield in the Ellisras Basin holds 50 billion tons of coal, but in 2005 the only working mine was the Grootegeluk Coal Mine?
Aymatth2 (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Good. I am updating the credit templates to include 'Ellisras Basin'. (Of course, I have to make myself a nominator. Heehee...) --PFHLai (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone review the third candidate, Ellisras Basin, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Can the new reviewer please examine all three articles? The original reviewer was new, and I'm not convinced that both of the original articles were reviewed, much less that all facets of a full DYK review were done. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Perhaps you should contact the original reviewer and explain your concern. As a newbie, it is possible he is not watching this page. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's better under the circumstances to get a new reviewer who will check all three. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
"Under the circumstances" is rather mysterious. Is there some background to this discussion that we should be aware of? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No mystery. We have here an inexperienced reviewer who didn't say what he reviewed and missed a basic grammatical problem in the hook, and we need a new reviewer anyway. Speaking as someone who promotes articles into prep areas, it's less work if I don't have to recheck every last thing, including paraphrasing, which I would have to do if no re-review is done. If an experienced reviewer does it then my checks are less involved, and I'm more likely to select this if time is at a premium. Your call. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
There was no grammatical error in the hook. Secretlondon felt it was awkward. I assume that User:Hazhk did a proper review. If not, he should be told what he missed. Perhaps you could take the time to review the articles yourself and point out any violations of WP policy or guidelines that need to be fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed all three articles. Each one was newly created around 26th September and all exceed 250 words. I see no evidence of close paraphrasing. The hook is sourced with an inline citation in all three articles. Going with ALT3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that some of the phrasing in these articles is too close to that of their sources. Compare for example "

brownfield expansion of the Grootegeluk mine, accelerating mining from the existing opencast pit" with "a brownfield expansion of the Grootegeluk mine, with mining from the existing opencast pit continuing at an accelerated rate", or "mobile tipping bins and crushers in the pit near the benches, which will advance as the mine advances. The plant will use dry screening to avoid having to pump slimes to slimes dams" with " tipping bins and crushers will be mobile units and will be used in the pit close to the benches, moving as the mine moves forward. The plant is planned to operate without the need to pump slimes to slimes dams, and to achieve this, dry screening will be introduced". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Maybe that was a bit close. I have tweaked the wording, which I think fixes the problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Better, but these were examples only - checking another few sources, I notice closeness with this one in Ellisras and this one in Grootegeluk. A comprehensive comb-through by the authors is probably needed to resolve problems here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not want to start a cat-and-mouse game where I am playing mouse. If you can point out all the specific places where you feel the wording needs improving, I would be glad to implement changes where I agree. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • However, I have undertaken a careful and comprehensive comb-through of all three articles, and have tweaked the wording to eliminate any possible concerns. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your continued efforts. Unfortunately, there are still problematic passages: for example, compare "The Grootegeluk Formation is about 70 metres (230 ft) thick, consisting of alternating layers of relatively thin coal beds" with "The Grootegeluk Formation of the Waterberg Coalfield is about 70 m thick and consists of relatively thin coal beds", or "the area is mostly covered by sands and soils, with very few rock outcrops" with "the area is covered by extensive soils and sands, with very few rock outcrops", or "The Ellisras basin floor has an asymmetrical north-south profile with a steep fault-bounded side to the north and a more gently sloping side to the south, typical of a half-graben" with "The north-south asymmetrical profile of the Ellisras basin is typical of the to be expected in a half-graben, with a steep fault-bounded side and a more gently sloping side", or "Grootgeluk Formation coals in the northeastern parts of the Ellisras Basin are thought to have good potential as a source of coalbed methane (CBM), since they are buried to depths of over 300 metres (980 ft) and have high levels of vitrinite" with "The Ellisras Basin's Grootgeluk Formation coals in the northeastern parts of the basin have good CBM potential, as they are buried to depths of >300 m, are suitably thick and have a high vitrinite content". Given the continued existence of issues here, perhaps it would be beneficial for you to seek out a third party proficient in correct paraphrasing to assist with your work editing these articles? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence of creative content being copied here, just dry and very dusty facts. Would you be willing to rephrase them to meet your criteria? Aymatth2 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that you see no evidence is precisely why it was suggested that you seek out a third party. Have you tried doing so? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I just did. I can think of nobody better able to spot and correct the kind of similarities of phrasing that concern Nikkimaria than Nikkimaria herself. Aymatth2 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • But she's not a third party here, who by definition would be someone other than the author and the reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: It would have to be a third party who understands the kind of thing that bothers Nikkimaria. I only worry about whether any creative expression has been copied, as opposed to mere facts. To me, these three articles are devoid of anything that could be seen as creative. Another reviewer may have the same problem. I would prefer to see Nikkimaria's version, but if that is not going to happen, I don't suppose you would be interested in taking a shot at it? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that I already reworded the four sentences that worried Nikkimaria, so it is just a question of checking that there is nothing else that could possibly cause concern. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I will be in Central America and may or may not be off-net until the end of the year, but will try to react quickly to any suggestions or queries when I return. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe I see the problems that Nikkimaria refers to, and I've started to try to tackle the issues in the articles. It is likely to take me a while... --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much, Orlady. It's wonderful of you to take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Progress report: I've found that many individual sentences and short passages in these articles were closely paraphrased from the cited sources. Sometimes, largely because the sentences were taken out of context, this resulted in misrepresentation of the content in the sources. After seeing that, I've endeavored to fix the articles by digging into the cited sources and other documents, then rewriting the text in a manner that I hope is both valid and not too closely paraphrased. I think I've tackled this from the opposite direction followed by the article creator(s), in that I started my major edits with the broadest-scope topic (Ellisras Basin, which I think is done now) and will move to the narrower topics of the coalfield and mine. Fortunately, it's been interesting learning about the geologic history of sub-Saharan Africa... --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Ellisras Basin article is contradictory, the first and only group I checked, the Ecca Group does not match the Wikipedia article on that group. The article is disorganized and difficult to understand because the geology is jumbled up. The article also does not say what basic type of basin it is, and appears to be talking about a sedimentary basin, not a structural basin, although the text is so scrambled, it would take more work than I am willing to put into it to understand. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Another problem, a Master's thesis is used as a source, and the thesis even calls itself a "pilot basin analysis," a type of preliminary data collection system for basin analysis that one should use with caution. In this article, it is used as a single source in only one instance, but the material is not used with caution in this article, and I would suggest that is safer to eliminate and all statements that rely upon it. Also, this is a Karoo basin, a specific type of basin, and it is a sedimentary basin, and I checked some of the sources, and, yes, they do mention that it is a Karoo basin, emphasize that this is a type of basin, and discuss the type of basin, so this information should be in the article, instead of dancing around it by saying it is north of the main Karoo basin. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I made a rather long reply at Talk:Ellisras Basin. As I stated there, the problem is that the Karoo Supergroup, including the Ecca Group, is recognized throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but the articles about these units currently focus only on the type area, which is the Karoo Basin. That's a bit like writing about the English language and describing it only as the language of England. When I started reviewing this DYK, I didn't intend to commit to rewriting all of the other articles about the geology of Africa, but that's the direction this is taking... --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To the excellent points made by 68.107.134.74, the basin appears to have originated as a half-graben structure. It was filled with Karoo supergroup sediments, capped by basalt flows and then covered by more recent sediments. The version of the article that was nominated for DYK was far from perfect. Expansion and shuffling to try to avoid any similarity of structure and wording with the sources has not helped. Mtimkulu's thesis is not a good source. My instinct is to cut out excessive detail, particularly in the names of strata, since these always seems controversial. I could do this pruning myself, but think Orlady has "ownership" at this stage. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Sometimes an article uses technical jargon because that is the only precise way to convey technical concepts. There is nothing creative about the jargon, which is "merged" with the idea expressed. Efforts to avoid repetition of jargon in the Ellisras Basin article have created a confused result. Also, the article now details the stratigraphy, where any two geologists will give three different opinions, and so has been flagged as contradicting the Ecca Group article. It may take a long time to resolve these concerns. To move things along, I propose to drop "Ellisras Basin" and revert to the original ALT1:
ALT1 ... that the Waterberg Coalfield holds 50 billion tons of coal, but in 2005 the only working mine was the Grootegeluk Coal Mine?
Aymatth2 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the problem that caused the flag to be displayed on Ellisras Basin is or was a problem with Ecca Group, which article is a stub that did not mention that the Group is recognized -- and the group name is used -- over a large geographic area of Africa. I've made a few edits there that I hope begin to indicate that this unit is not restricted to the Karoo Basin. (It would help a lot if there were also an article about the Karoo Basin, separate from Karoo and Karoo Supergroup, but that's another issue.) Meanwhile, I think that Ellisras Basin is reasonably free of copyvio issues, but I can't yet say the same for the other articles. My apologies for neglecting to work on those articles -- I need to get back to this. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @Orlady. I really appreciate the effort you have put into this, but to me the Ellisras Basin article is just too confused to go on the front page, and this will take time to fix, which is why I have dropped it from the nomination. The stratigraphy in particular is a moving target. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The article is currently a jumbled up mess and is missing the most basic information, particularly information that would allow it to be less confusing, isn't this a foreland basin system? Syndepositional? If it were developed as a basin article, it could be written in an easier to follow manner, and the internal links would be useful for directing the reader to more advanced concepts. The jargon is overused; and this also follows from the failure to define the large structure that is and develop details. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this has been open for four months and, despite Orlady's fantastic work, it doesn't look like it's ready for the prime time. I think we should put this nom out of its misery. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There are no outstanding issues that I know of. The Ellisras basin article, which got a bit mixed up, was dropped from the nom. The other two are just waiting for someone to confirm that all problems have been fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The close paraphrasing issues remain in the two original articles. As Orlady noted earlier this month, "Meanwhile, I think that Ellisras Basin is reasonably free of copyvio issues, but I can't yet say the same for the other articles." She hasn't made any edits to the other articles since that time. She had earlier said, at the end of last year: "I've found that many individual sentences and short passages in these articles were closely paraphrased from the cited sources", so I have to conclude that at the moment the two remaining articles remain problematic—Orlady and Nikkimaria have both reported issues—and will continue to be unless someone capable of finding the issues is willing to take the time to fix them. If that person is not going to be Orlady, then I think Crisco has made the correct decision. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've unfortunately become rather distracted by an Arbcom proceeding. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear that. Do you agree that we should end this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Between this being my first experience as a party to an Arbcom case (so I don't really understand the process) and long time over which the issues have been developing (more than 4 years), participation is time-consuming. I had intended to work on these articles, but they aren't my top priority. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If any specific problems are pointed out, I will fix them. I am not aware of any. "This has been around a while, and nobody can be bothered to review it" is not a good reason to drop a nom. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just one example for now:
Source: Three possibilities for providing sufficient water for further development are the raising of the Moloko Dam, pumping water from the Crocodile River to the Moloko Dam and importing water from the Zambezi River.
Waterberg Coalfield article: Water could perhaps be obtained by raising the Mokolo Dam, by pumping water from the Crocodile River to the Mokolo Dam or by importing water from the Zambezi.
Not only is the Wikipedia sentence closely paraphrased, but (1) I see the source as engaged in economic-development puffery and (2) I note that the Wikipedia article does not indicate why all this water is needed (it's primarily due to the very high ash content of the coal, which necessitates beneficiation, which requires a lot of water). --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To my mind, the question is whether it's reasonable to expect DYK reviewers to ferret out every last instance of close paraphrasing within an article, or whether there should come a point at which the nomination is closed down because instances keep being found. Aymatth2, I feel for you, but it's clear that close paraphrasing is a blind spot for you, something you have said yourself on past nominations where this has been a protracted issue. At this point, since you have long since "undertaken a careful and comprehensive comb-through of all three articles, and have tweaked the wording to eliminate any possible concerns", yet Orlady finds something as clear as this, I support Crisco's move to close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Grootegeluk_Coal_Mine,_Waterberg_Coalfield&oldid=829060688"