Talk:Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 24 October 2021 by reviewer Chidgk1 (talk · contribs).

Fisheries and Fishing Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that models couple up at Fish-MIP? Source: "the idea is to run the same simulations on different models and combine the results into robust projections" [1]

Created by INRS (talk). Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk) at 08:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Safad El Battikh, Kafra, Lebanon and Ayta al-Jabal earned 3 QPQ Chidgk1 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Length, history and references verified. But next time please do try to put something from the ref in the nom as requested. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to be a bit of a stickler on this one. I don't quite feel comfortable promoting it. When an article is between 1,500 and 2,000 characters of prose long, I generally look at how an article is broken up to determine whether or not it's a stub (more leeway to longer articles). This one is pretty top-heavy—if the article isn't majority lead by prose, it's close. Plus, most of the lead is not repeated in the body. For those reasons, I'm going to say that this article is a stub and needs to be more properly formatted before it meets DYK criteria. This could be as simple as moving parts of the lead into the body, or something more intricate (I'd recommend not just moving sentences, as parts of the lead are slightly unencyclopedic). I also think the sentence on ISIpedia should be cut entirely if the site can't be shown to be notable—maybe there's a section for ISIpedia in the external links section.

Chidgk1, I know this seems like a lot, but it's not so scary, really—this is good work on a fascinating topic, and we're almost there! Let me know what you think of the changes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go review another one, then. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: your review still counts as a qpq, if that's what you mean. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the " good work on a fascinating topic" was done by student INRS for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Concordia_University/HENV_680_Advanced_Seminar_in_Environmental_Science_Winter_2021_(Winter_2021) but perhaps they ran out of time as unfortunately I had to cut out a lot from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisheries_and_Marine_Ecosystem_Model_Intercomparison_Project&oldid=1031166787 due to lack of citations. I suspect the uncited info is corrrect as the article was accepted by ecologist Elmidae but as I knew nothing of the subject beforehand I am unable to easily find cites. So I now think I should put some of the uncited info back in with "citation needed" tags in the hope that others will add the cites. @Theleekycauldron: @Daniel Case: - would it be OK to do this now as maybe experts will see and cite it when it appears in DYK? If not I will make a reminder to myself to do it after DYK. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: my involvement with the article was to draftify it, twice, due to the lack of sourcing - and I didn't NPP it when it came out of AfC again. So I wouldn't want to state that I signed off on the uncited material :) Having said that, I believe that issue is well sorted out. Looks like a nice start class article now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: In general, a DYK article is going to need to be adequately sourced before it even gets to the prep sets, so any information you add would have to be cited as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Have put back the main paragraph as originally written and cited as best I can as a layman. Is that OK? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't a stub anymore, which is really great—I think my only remaining objection is that the article seems to be a little jargon-y. This one is tough to work out without knowledge of the subject itself—could we see if the article could be put in layman's terms? DYKs are liable to get lots of eyes; they should be appropriately understandable to a broad audience. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Made a few changes - is it readable enough now? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: readable indeed! One last thing—where is the hook mentioned in the article? Should be cited inline as well theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Oh no - is my attempt at humour in a DYK hook going to be rejected again as they always have been in the past? But yes you are right it may not be technically accurate. If you don't have a better idea I'll try and come up with an alternative. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Now is no time to abandon ship! (plus, barely anyone here can write a quirky hook to save their life, so if we can get this to go, that'd be good). Maybe just a citation for the ensemble modelling part would work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: OK done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good to go! thanks for working with me on this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]