Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Template:Did you know nominations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.107.134.74 (talk) at 06:04, 4 January 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Grootegeluk Coal Mine, Waterberg Coalfield

( 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, 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Grootegeluk_Coal_Mine,_Waterberg_Coalfield&oldid=531221447"