Template:Did you know nominations/Sticky mat

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) 06:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sticky mat

(

)

A soiled sticky mat in a nanomaterials production facility

... that proper use of engineering controls should prevent contaminants from being excessively deposited on sticky mats at a laboratory's exits, unlike the pictured example?

Reviewed: Louis-René Villermé

Created by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I will review this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2017 (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: epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Overall, everything looks good so far, apart from the two minor issues (the first is more of a matter of convenience, the other needs to be fixed before this can be approved). epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no requirement that the fact can't be in a caption; the rules only state that must be in the article, not specifically in the body. Also, linking to an HTML landing page is preferred over linking to a PDF since it's easier to get metadata from the former. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about the second point. But for the first one, maybe you can include a link to the PDF anyway (as well as to the landing page)? This helps readers navigate to the citation faster, otherwise you run the risk of a {{failed verification}} just slapped onto the article. Otherwise, everything is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be confusing to have two URLs for the same citation. This is beyond the scope of DYK anyway. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on the point that it would be confusing, but I'm not going to press the issue. That said, everything is good to go for this nom. epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)