Template:Did you know nominations/Main Central Thrust

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 Zanhe (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Main Central Thrust

(

)

~~... that one of the models to explain the Main Central Thrust is channel flow-focused denudation?~~

Reviewed: Daniel Paris

Created/expanded by Hongcheng Guo (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 19:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

This really needs some sort of indication of what this article is about in the hook. I still don't really understand it after reading the lede. The article needs a though our copyedit as well, but that is not a DYK issue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, this appears to be a significant issue. Please address it as soon as possible; it's been eleven days without a response. Also, if the article needs a thorough copyedit, it is a DYK issue despite what Maury said: I just read the lede and it is incomprehensible, and as such has no business being linked to on the main page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lede and am copyediting. I will make a new hook for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Hi Graeme, it's been nearly two weeks now. Any news on this nomination? Fuebaey (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the Main Central Thrust extends 2200 km along the Himalaya mountain belt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Full review needed now that a new hook has been proposed, and the article has been copyedited. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gave it one further copy edit. New enough, long enough, within policy (couldn't check plagarism since most citations are offline or non-PDF, so I'll AGF), and the hook is formatted well and is interesting, cited and neutral. QPQ checks out. Looks good to go. 23W 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)