The following discussion 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Lack of original prose
Hook is interesting and well-sourced. Article makes generous use of NASA text and the only thing I've done is distribute sources to each of the paragraphs and change some of the text to avoid repetitive wording, though this is how it's stated in the source. NASA image. Article looks fine. Dawnseeker2000 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The extensive use of copied and unquoted NASA text from the first two sources is highly problematic: the requirements for proper citing and quoting do not appear to be met, and the amount of non-NASA material may not meet the minimum 1500 prose characters for DYK. Have asked for an expert in citing, close paraphrasing, and copyvio to check. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, there are a few different problems going on here. First off, per rule 2b, copied or very closely paraphrased material cannot be counted towards the 1500-character minimum size; my rough estimation of character count minus said material is 1400 characters, which is too short. Second, material copied from other Wikipedia articles is also not counted towards the 1500-character minimum; you've got about 1000 characters from Martian geyser, putting you under 400 characters of original content. Third, both of those types of copying require special types of attribution, which you seem not to have included - see WP:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources for details. There is another issue to consider: FN2, while written by a NASA scientist and archived on the NASA site, was published by AIAA, which generally holds copyright over the material it publishes. The NASA site claims the document in question is not copyrighted, so I'm going to assume they're right even though the situation is a bit irregular. Anyways, given the issues here, I think meeting DYK guidelines for this article within a reasonable timeframe would be quite difficult. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Shame. I had no idea it included so much non-original material when I nominated it. Secretlondon (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, Nikkimaria. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)