Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Takahe
Appearance
- 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) 05:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Mount Takahe
- ... that the Mount Takahe volcano (pictured) may have generated an ozone hole 17,700 years ago?
5x expanded by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
- Article length and age are fine, no copyviolation or plagiarism issues seem evident, and reliable sources appear to be used. The hook is fine and will be understandable to a wide audience. The only issue requiring remedy is that the passage in the article providing the fact for the hook does not currently provide an inline citation. By the looks of the article, that should be easily remedied and I will notify the nominator. I do not see a QPQ review on the nominator's talk page or recent contributions although I may have missed it. This is my first DYK review; request 2nd opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airborne84 (talk • contribs)
- @Airborne84: QPQ is here and I've added the inline references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks.
- QPQ is good. Inline citation issue is resolved. Image is also good, as I didn't mention that previously. I did a minor rewording of the hook. Airborne84 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Article length and age are fine, no copyviolation or plagiarism issues seem evident, and reliable sources appear to be used. The hook is fine and will be understandable to a wide audience. The only issue requiring remedy is that the passage in the article providing the fact for the hook does not currently provide an inline citation. By the looks of the article, that should be easily remedied and I will notify the nominator. I do not see a QPQ review on the nominator's talk page or recent contributions although I may have missed it. This is my first DYK review; request 2nd opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airborne84 (talk • contribs)