- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Edinburgh Trams edit
- ... that when Edinburgh Trams commence service in May 2014, it will have been fifty-eight years since the closure of Edinburgh's previous tramway?
Created/expanded by RGloucester (talk). Self nominated at 19:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC).
This article does not meet the criterion of fivefold expansion having been expanded from 20kb to 25kb. It became a GA on September 19th, but although this is under discussion, I do not believe a proposal to allow new GAs to qualify for DYK has yet been implemented. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was nominating it based on the GA RfC. I thought that was closed in favor of permitting newly promoted GA's as DYKs? RGloucester — ☎ 12:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, it is in the DYK eligibility criteria that new good articles are permitted, so I suppose it has been implemented. RGloucester — ☎ 12:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the position. At the top of the DYK discussion page it states "The RFC closed with a consensus to include newly passed GAs in DYK, starting from the end of September 2013." I will leave this for somebody else to approve or reject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer needed; this is eligible. The closing statement of the RfC actually says, "I suggest that the decision made in this RfC take effect in two weeks, which will allow a reasonable time for the editors active on DYK and GA to set up exactly how things will work. That would be on September 20." I'm not sure who wrote that note at the top of WT:DYK, but it wasn't completely accurate. This was nominated only five hours early, the same day it became a GA, so it was still "new" on the 20th. (Note: other recent GA nominees were reviewed and promoted in September, so I'd certainly allow this one to be.) Note that a full DYK review needs to be done; the GA review may not be used for any part of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This article was newly created a GA on September 19th and I now understand that it qualifies for DYK as a result. The hook fact has an inline citation so I think all relevant DYK criteria are met and am pleased to pass it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
