Template:Did you know nominations/NW Rota-1
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
NW Rota-1
,_2006.jpg)
The white sulfur bubbles rise behind carbon dioxide bubbles
- ... that in 2004 an underwater explosive volcanic eruption (pictured) was for the first time observed, at NW Rota-1 volcano?
Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 20:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC).
- Reviewed: Tourist tax
- For clarity, I'd suggest rewording to something like "the first observed underwater volcanic eruption occurred at NW Rota-1 in 2004" - changes it to active voice and "for the first time observed" is kind of awkward phrasing. Also, the article lead says it was the first explosive eruption observed underwater - does that mean that there were other kinds of eruptions underwater seen before? If so, you might want to mention that specifically. Haven't done a DYK review before, so won't sign off one way or the other. creffett (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Added "explosive". I am a little concerned that the active voice formulation might imply that it was the first eruption at that volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- For clarity, I'd suggest rewording to something like "the first observed underwater volcanic eruption occurred at NW Rota-1 in 2004" - changes it to active voice and "for the first time observed" is kind of awkward phrasing. Also, the article lead says it was the first explosive eruption observed underwater - does that mean that there were other kinds of eruptions underwater seen before? If so, you might want to mention that specifically. Haven't done a DYK review before, so won't sign off one way or the other. creffett (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
AGF for the offline academic source relied on for the hook. New GA status deals with most of the other tests, image is in public domain, and Earwig finds nothing except the titles of the articles cited. I broadly agree that an active voice would be better, but the fact stated seems clear enough, and there is no DYK rule on the voice of the main verb in a hook. (Not yet, anyway.) Good to go, but I have an idea the hook will be edited somewhere along the way before it gets where it is going. Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Moonraker:Template:Did you know nominations/Tourist tax is the QPQ since I forgot to do it immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me, Jo-Jo Eumerus, so I can add QPQ done. Moonraker (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this. I would just like confirmation that the image is of the NW Rota-1 underwater volcano; this is not clear from the Commons page. (As it is clear that the green-toned picture to the left of it in the article is of the NW Rota-1 volcano.) I also suggest writing the hook this way:- ALT0a: ... that scientists [or oceanographers?] observed an underwater explosive volcanic eruption (pictured) for the first time in 2004, at NW Rota-1 volcano? Yoninah (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Resolved the file issue; seems like it was uploaded under the wrong name. I've renamed it on Commons and here (you may notice the edit). ALT0a is perhaps better with "scientists". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
