Template:Did you know nominations/Martian regolith simulant

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Martian regolith simulant‎

(

)

~~... that Martian soil simulant‎ (pictured) used by Mars researchers is made from Hawaiian volcanic ash?~~

Created by Z22 (talk). Self nominated at 04:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

Photo is public domain. Hook is proper length and format, and its fact is supported by online reference. The article's date and length are appropriate. Every paragraph in the article body has at least one reference. The article appears neutrally written from reliable sources, and appears free from copyright violation and too-close paraphrasing. Approved. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There are too many fundamental factual errors to allow this proceed at the present time. In the JSC MARS-1 paragraph, the technical term "size fractions" from FN3 has been rendered "fractions of the size" here, "mm" becomes "milliliters", "palagonitic tephra" becomes "paragonetic tephra", and the phrase "has been cited to contain" is not worded well. The pictured ash, the 1A, is not sourced as Hawaiian in the article (the Material safety sheet sourced does not mention Hawaii at all); however, this web page (http://www.orbitec.com/store/simulant.html) does support it and could be used in the 1A paragraphs. Also, the sentence about sizes reads as if "no less than 13 microns" is a separate size, instead of it being the smallest size of particle in the other two categories. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have made those changes. Please review and see now if there is still any factual error. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Z22, I'm sorry it's taken me so long. I don't see any issues with the changes, but I had noticed a couple of in MMS section. I've just done a significant revision of that section, because I felt it didn't quite hold together. I've added some material and also removed parts that didn't seem to work based on that MMS source. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, BlueMoonset. It is better described now at the beginning of that section. I guess you are right about the part that you removed. It was strictly about the future MMS-derived simulants which may not be directly associated with this article. So, what's the next step on this? Z22 (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like it, Z22. Before this goes to a final review, I think there needs to be an ALT hook that revises the current text somewhat: the article does mention both JSC MARS-1 and MMS, and both appear to be used by researchers, but only the former uses the Hawaiian volcanic ash. One possibility is to word the hook so it has to be the Hawaiian material. For example,

ALT1: ~~... that the original Martian soil simulant‎ (pictured) used by Mars researchers was made from Hawaiian volcanic ash?~~

If the JSC one was the first created, then this could work, so long as a source and the text clearly supports it, but if there were others before it, it wouldn't work. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the Martian soil simulant‎ (pictured) used by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is made from Hawaiian volcanic ash?

If we want to be more correct, then we ALT2 is the best because it is directly supported by the inline citation and also the picture is of JSC-MARS-1A which is not the original, but the current one used by NASA. Z22 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I've struck ALT1. I made a tiny change to your ALT2: "was made" → "is made", since it's the current one. Since I've made a bunch of edits to the article, I really shouldn't be the one to do the final review, so I'll put out a call for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to check ALT2 hook and also to recheck the article. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay! The new work is good, and the sources still support the hook. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)