Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/COMINAK, SOMAIR, Akokan, Niger

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of COMINAK, SOMAIR, Akokan, Niger's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC).

DYK toolbox

COMINAK, SOMAIR, Akokan, Niger

[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

SOMAIR open pit mine

Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

  • The DYKCheck code says that these were created on March 20 and March 21 by Dr. Blofeld. Thus, the DYK dates are good. The code also says that they each have at least 2 times the required 1500 characters of readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposed hooks seems to be devoid of a verb.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Tony for the detailed review. I have addressed all the issues raised by you as under.

1. The hook is of three articles and I have now done the QPQ for the third article as well
2. The expansion in respect of all three artciles is more than 5x and as mentioned above they comply to DYK rules.
3. Akokan, Niger has been restructured as suggested and an additional reference here [1] (page 18) which links it to COMINAK and SOMAIR here is added in all three articles.
4. The hook is reworded as Alt1 ... that COMINAK and SOMAIR mines (pictured Somair mine) are near Akokan, Niger's "second uranium town"?

I hope the above clarifications and changes meet your observations.--Nvvchar. 06:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I gather, all three articles are definitely on the right track, but not yet at their final destinations. Akokan and SOMAIR are relatively 'done'. The first has a slight close paraphrasing issue at ref 12, and SOMAIR has one reference listed twice. Apart from that, they look good. However, I established multiple issues with COMINAK: the article's name is not consistently spelled in all caps throughout the article, it has a close paraphrasing issue at ref 12 and one of the links is offline. This needs some work, I'm afraid.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I took care of most of these issues. I didn't understand the offline link issue; can you please explain? I think Nvv will clear up the close paraphrasing. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have now addressed the paraphrasing issues.--Nvvchar. 04:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • One of the links was offline when I checked, but the issue seems to have fixed itself. Anyway, this looks much better. Would like an independent reviewer to check this article to see if all truly is fixed.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 16:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Have my 18 April 2013 (UTC) concerns been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We believe all of your concerns have been addressed except we don't have a map to show the location of each place. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The articles appear to be written by people with limited command of English and limited understanding of the subjects of mining, geology, and radioactivity. This is not a barrier to DYK, but it makes it a challenge to understand the articles and review the nomination. BTW, my reading of the sources leads me to suggest that COMINAK and SOMAIR possibly should be described as "mining operations" (not as either "companies" or "mines").
The suggested hooks are neither very clear nor very interesting, IMHO. If the various issues with the articles are resolved, I recommend the following:
  • I like ALT2. I'd say these are almost ready. The only issue I've established is an uncited paragraph in SOMAIR. Can that be fixed?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 07:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I am. Ref 1 on COMINAK and Ref 4 on SOMAIR. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The reference numbers are different in the different articles, but the relationship between the towns and the mines is in the lead of all three articles, with appropriate sourcing. --Orlady (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed reference to paragraph under section "Production" in SOMAIR. ALT2: Hook is fine with us. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, TonyTheTiger. I meant to say Ref 2 on the COMINAK article, not ref 1. This is the same document as ref 4 on SOMAIR. The information is on page iii in that document. It says "Two uranium mines near the villages of Arlit and Akokan in Niger were the subject of a recent study undertaken by Greenpeace (2010)." Perhaps the study from Greenpeace does need to be cited individually, becase that one (here) is on even clearer on the location of the mines on its 10th page.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You are telling me that the information is on page iii, while the citation says page 18. How is the reader suppose to WP:V the citation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
And of course add whatever additional citation is necessary to actually verify the claimed fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Will do so tonight or tomorrow. Is that the last obstacle you see towards verification?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It turns out the info was also on page 19 - instead of iii - so I'm using that instead. Also added the Greenpeace reference. Please reassess. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I read the source as saying that SOMAIR is in Arlit and COMINAK is in Akokan, which does not quite support the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I have reworded the articles a bit, put in an extra reference to verify that Akokan and Arlit are actually really next to one another on a map and this is the new hook I'm fielding:
ALT3: ... that Akokan is one of Niger's two "uranium towns" located nearby the COMINAK and SOMAIR uranium mines (SOMAIR mine pictured)?
What about that? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't believe that this is being held up over a contention as to whether two towns that are just 5 km apart are "near" each other. --Orlady (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Everything looks O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Tony, thank you for greenlighting this. But could you specify which hook you are approving?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
All hooks thus far are now valid.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the original hook didn't have a verb. I've struck through it. Since it's really hard to find the ALT hooks on this page, I'm listing them here for convenience:
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/COMINAK,_SOMAIR,_Akokan,_Niger&oldid=864737469"