Template:Did you know nominations/GRB 101225A(Christmas burst)
- 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 Allen3 talk 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
GRB 101225A
[edit]- ... that Gamma ray Burst 101225A, also known as the Christmas burst, discovered on 25 December 2010 was an unusually long duration of the gamma-ray emission?
Created/expanded by Dr meetsingh (talk). Self nom at 05:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- hook is short enough, interesting enough, in article, and cited near bottom, cite supports facts. However article is not really new enough, being about 9 days old and only less than doubled in the last 5 days. This would make a great complement to my gamma ray emitting galaxy DYK, but would be stretching the DYK timeframe to include it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could you clarify (+source, +wikilink) some jargon which was apparently copied from plain-text sources? Just one example, "In particular, the initial high-energy emission observed (Dt 5 180 d) detected GRB 101225A at gAB ~27:21+0:27 mag and 0rAB ~26:90+0:14 mag by the BAT can be modelled as a black body with T < 10 keV" - it is unsourced, and while I have a wild guess what it means, I bet 99.99% of readers won't. Materialscientist (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed that observations and will add that information 99% readers can understand. Dr meetsingh Talk 13:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- hook is short enough, interesting enough, in article, and cited near bottom, cite supports facts. However article is not really new enough, being about 9 days old and only less than doubled in the last 5 days. This would make a great complement to my gamma ray emitting galaxy DYK, but would be stretching the DYK timeframe to include it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Duplication of PD content is not prohibited at DYK, and is perfectly acceptable in my view, so long as the source meets WP:V and is appropriately wikified etc. However, in this particular article I found a couple of sentences duplicated from mcdonaldobservatory.org, where I could find no information about copyright status, so without further clarification I don't think this one can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- FTR, the current "rules" at WP:Did you know#Selection criteria state: "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I see our longstanding position on free data sources was altered by Rjanag a couple of months ago,[1] apparently without discussion. To make a significant change to DYK practice like that would certainly require considered debate, and I for one would be strongly opposed to any such change, so in the meantime I have restored (and clarified) the original position.[2] Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- FTR, the current "rules" at WP:Did you know#Selection criteria state: "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Duplication of PD content is not prohibited at DYK, and is perfectly acceptable in my view, so long as the source meets WP:V and is appropriately wikified etc. However, in this particular article I found a couple of sentences duplicated from mcdonaldobservatory.org, where I could find no information about copyright status, so without further clarification I don't think this one can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've done a lot of work on the article now, and it's past my bedtime. It turns out that almost the entire article was copied from various sources, including not only NASA PD material, but also copyrighted sources like the National Geographic website. I think I've eliminated all of the copyvios, but it's not clear to me if this page of NASA data reports is PD, since most of the reports are from non-NASA sources. If it's not PD, a check is still needed to make sure that the content from that source is not "too close." (I'm too bleary-eyed to do that right now.) --Orlady (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I've spent more time with the article now, and in view of the extent of my rewrites, someone else needs to do a final review. The article still contains some verbatim wording from this NASA article (particularly in the lead section), but otherwise I think it's reasonably original. The hook fact is supported by sourcing (particularly that NASA article), but the specific sentence in the article doesn't have a citation. My personal preference would be for an alternative hook focused on the interpretations of the burst's origin:
- ALT1 ... that one of the two theories about the Christmas gamma ray burst places it just 10,000 light years from Earth, but the other theory indicates a distance of 5.5 billion light years? --Orlady (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hook: (For ALT1): Short enough, interesting. However, the 10,000 light years bit is not sourced directly after the sentence.
- Article: To follow, as I have a New Year's Eve dinner to go to. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Back. Article: New enough, long enough, referencing is thorough and well formatted. Paraphrasing checks: Fine, fine.
- Summary:
Just need to fix up one small issue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Footnote inserted to support ALT1, per Crisco's request on my talk page. That apparently completes the successful review. --Orlady (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it is. Good save. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
