Template talk:Did you know/Potsdam Sandstone

Potsdam Sandstone

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

... that New York's Potsdam Sandstone was deposited in rising seas and consists of sediments eroded from unvegetated terrestrial landscapes?

Reviewed: Landguard Manor

Created by Orlady (talk). Self nom at 12:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to prospective reviewers: The source for the absence of vegetation on the land is Hagadorn and Belt (2008). That article is cited as an offline source, but is available at [1] -- not visibly linked in the article because of possible fair-use/copyright issues with the posting on that website. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules: hook format checks out.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: sources are sufficient and reliable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interest: --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability, if applicable: I would like to see another photo offering a more close-up view.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT hooks, if proposed:

Article

Length: --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage: 3 days old when nominated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio: --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting:

Comments/discussion: I would prefer to see another close-up photo of potsdam sandstone in the article to improve its quality, but I think this is not an obstacle to successful dyk.

Seems formally fine and interesting enough.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]