Template:Did you know nominations/Blue-ice area
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 97198 (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Blue-ice area
- ... that blue-ice areas (pictured) are places in Antarctica where snow evaporation and wind have exposed blue ice, which often contains meteorites?
- Comment: The "in Antarctica" is deliberate as the concept has not really been applied in Greenland much less elsewhere in the world.
Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 08:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC).
- New enough (passed GA today, November 7), long enough (8,941 characters), neutral, cited to a very high degree of accuracy (individual facts cited within sentences), and low probability of copyright violation (compared articles had only generic or proper phrases in common). Hook is short enough (132 characters), definitely broadly interesting (I'd never heard of this before!) and cited in text and in the body of Bintanja 1999. However, both the article and the source specify that it's not evaporation but sublimation at work to remove snow from BIAs–maybe change "evaporation" in the hook to "sublimation" or "loss" for accuracy? QPQ still needed, image is PD. Best —Collint c 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bobamnertiopsis:Template:Did you know nominations/Lost in the Fumes is the QPQ. Regarding "evaporation", sublimation is a form of evaporation and "evaporation" is a more commonly understood term than "sublimation". Perhaps adding "and wind" might be needed, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good! QPQ done, added "and wind" to the hook which after your explanation is now good to go. Thanks! —Collint c 19:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Although I won't object if people want to change it to "sublimation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- New enough (passed GA today, November 7), long enough (8,941 characters), neutral, cited to a very high degree of accuracy (individual facts cited within sentences), and low probability of copyright violation (compared articles had only generic or proper phrases in common). Hook is short enough (132 characters), definitely broadly interesting (I'd never heard of this before!) and cited in text and in the body of Bintanja 1999. However, both the article and the source specify that it's not evaporation but sublimation at work to remove snow from BIAs–maybe change "evaporation" in the hook to "sublimation" or "loss" for accuracy? QPQ still needed, image is PD. Best —Collint c 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)