Template:Did you know nominations/Indus River Delta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Indus River Delta[edit]

The Indus River Delta as seen from space

  • Reviewed: Son of God (TV series)
  • Comment: I've suggested two possible hooks, not sure which one is more interesting. Article recently increased more than 5-fold in size (current prose is >2,000 words, previous prose was ~200 words)

Created/expanded by Vice regent (talk). Self nom at 23:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg 5x expansion. Length and date are fine. I see no signs of close paraphrasing. Either hook is good though the first has an offline citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added a google books link, so the reference can be verified. Personally I think the second one is more relevant in today's world.VR talk 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Close paraphrasing concerns. Examples: "functionally blind", "eyes [are] virtually useless", "reduced the transport of water and fertile sediments down from the river to the delta" vs "limit the transport of fertile sediments downstream into the delta", "The WWF is working on a long-term conservation program focussing on fresh-water scarcity in the delta" vs "WWF is developing a long-term conservation programme, ranging up to 50 years, focusing on freshwater scarcity in the coastal areas of the Indus delta". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the concerns [1]. Please let me know what you think.VR talk 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Those example fixed, thanks. However, I'm noticing other issues. For example, the article says "under Indian laws, fisherman can face, at most, one year in prison", but according to the source, the law only allows for 3 months. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.VR talk 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that Nikkimaria is taking the close paraphrasing issue to extremes. I do not think the examples given above are close paraphrasing at all, but an attempt to provide useful, sourced information. What's wrong with the phrase "eyes [are] virtually useless" being used when the source states "functionally blind" and the author is attempting to explain why the Indus River Dolphin can't see? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Because the source also states "eyes are virtually useless". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind Nikkimaria's constructive criticism. Its useful as I hope to nominate improve this article further so that I can nominate it for GA-status in a couple of months. However, I would urge Nikkimaria to be bold enough to make minor corrections to content him/herself.VR talk 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to comment on the use of 'functionally blind'. The term is used in multiple sources to describe the senses of the dolphin without any attribution, because it simply describes the amount of vision that the animal has compared to its other senses. It's just the relevant technical term and there should be no more problem with reusing it than to describe the dolphin as an 'aquatic mammal'. Mikenorton (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and if it were just that I wouldn't have commented on it. However, when multiple phrasings of that type accumulate, it becomes more problematic, particularly where the structure is also very similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there weren't significant other issues, I just don't want to see editors having to rewrite valid technical terms because a source has used that precise form of words. Mikenorton (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria could you please confirm that all of the concerns you raised on this page have been addressed in a satisfactory manner (as of Dec 5)?VR talk 06:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm still finding issues on spotchecks. Another example: "The delta experiences strong monsoonal winds from the southwest during the summer, and winds from the northeast during the winter. The former winds cause parts of the delta to be inundated by sea-water, which leaves behind salts in its retreat. The delta is also unique as it receives more wave action than any other river delta in the world. (The Indus delta receives more wave energy in a single day than the Mississippi River Delta receives in a year). Throughout history the delta has survived this wave action because of the large discharge of fresh water to counter the erosional impact of waves" vs "The delta experiences strong monsoonal winds from the southwest during the summer and from the northeast during winter. During the summer monsoon seawater inundates both the active and inactive parts of the delta, leaving behind evaporitic salt during its retreat...What makes the Indus Delta unique is the fact that it experiences the highest wave energy of any river in the world...the delta front receives more wave energy in a single day than the Mississippi Delta receives in the entire year. Until recently the high discharge of the Indus was able to balance the erosional effect of the waves". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed [2]. Paraphrasing concern addressed by both re-wording and in brining in two new sources. Anything else?VR talk 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Another example: "Until the 1980s, mangroves grew along the entire 240 km long coast line, 40% of the tidal belt, and 10% of the delta fan. Occupying an area estimated at 600,000 hectares, they were considered the 5th or 6th largest mangrove forests in the world." vs "As late as the early 1980s mangroves grew along the 240 km long coast line and occupied an area estimated to be 600,000 hectares, approximately 40% of the tidal belt and 10% of the Indus delta fan. They were rated as the fifth or sixth largest mangrove forests in the world". At this point, a complete check of all sources is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Once again, fixed.[3]
But I am now beginning to agree with some of the editors above that some of your expectations are unreasonable.I really can't change "until 1980s", "along the 240 km long coast line", "area [of] 600,000 hectares", "40% of the tidal belt", "10% of the delta fan", "sixth largest". These are facts that can't be paraphrased and must be stated verbatim (else I'm guilty of misrepresenting sources).VR talk 03:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, some tiny snippets like that are acceptable; however, they can be re-arranged and the material around them rephrased to eliminate such concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I believe I have done that. Do you still find the phrasing in the article unsatisfactory?VR talk 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If all known concerns have been addressed, perhaps this should be promoted. Cwmhiraeth already approved this earlier.VR talk 02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I think we're there. I rejigged some bits and formatted. Setting the duplicate detector at 4/13 gives me set phrase segments that I don't think can be reworded, so I'm happy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)