Template:Did you know nominations/Global dimming

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 Rjjiii talk 06:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Global dimming

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that sulfate pollution causes cooling through global dimming which is comparable to warming from methane, and air quality measures often accelerate climate change if they do not act on both? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by InformationToKnowledge (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC).

• Not a review, and I do my QPQs oldest first so would not get to this any time soon (but would not object to any other editor jumping in ahead of me); if I saw that hook in prep, I'd truncate it at "methane" per WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• I will be taking this one; please give me a mo' ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: No need for a QPQ considering the amt of noms. Okay hook, but I concur with Launchballer above about truncating it. I found some issues with WP:CLOP and source-text integrity from a spotcheck of ~10% of the sources, but they aren't so egregious.

A solid GAN review tells me that great care was put into this article, but to be safe, I spotchecked ten sources (refer to this version for the ref numbers).

13, good; 25 doesn't say the studies occured in Germany and Israel; 38, no issues; 50, no mention of developed nations or wet bed combustion but will AGF the offline source cited beside it does---please confirm as well. 60 (not open access on my end? no issues otherwise though); 71, no issues; 85, no issues; 97, no issues; 108, no issues; 120 has close paraphrasing issues so please fix this.

A quick glance at the reflist suggests there are no blatantly unreliable RS, and the article was DYK-nommed at the right window of time. The prose is ok for a GA. Ran Earwig for copyvio issues but no extreme red flags. @InformationToKnowledge, please ping me once everything has been addressed. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 12:33, 29 April 2024‎ (UTC)

Thank you for addressing @InformationToKnowledge. I think all my issues have been addressed, and this is good to go unless someone else objects . By the way, you replied at the article talk page, not here. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Making a couple notes before promoting. One of the cited sources says "sulfur",[1] but if you click the linked text it's clear they're talking about sulfates as the hook says.[2] Also, as suggested by others above, I'll cut the hook at "methane?" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References