Template:Did you know nominations/2012-13 Arsenal F.C. season
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season
edit- ... that the Emirates Cup was cancelled from the 2012–13 Arsenal season due to the 2012 London Olympics?
- Reviewed: Voluntary disclosure
Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self nom at 11:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this nomination may violate rule D7: "D7: There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive." – Given that many of the sections in the article are blank (for obvious reasons) at the moment, the article certainly does not "appear complete". There are also a number of red-links, and the inclusion of only five teams in the Premier League table confuses me greatly. I propose that this is rejected at the moment, unless a good deal of the section headings are cut from the article. Even then, I'm not convinced that this article is appropriate. I will seek further guidance from WT:DYK. Harrias talk 16:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at the season before's page you'll notice that the table only covers the teams surrounding Arsenal where they are in the table, that's why theres only 5 teams shown. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've blanked the scorers column as that can easily be put back when the season starts. Not sure what other blank things you mean as the matches bits are full. As for the redlinks, thats because the template hasn't been made yet, I'll see if I can. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The question as raised by Harrias seems to be whether an article on something notable that is beginning to happen is eligible. We certainly have been running such sorts of articles in DYK. The 2012-13 season seems to have a well-developed pre-season section, on newsworthy events that have occurred to date, plus a number of tables, some of which have no appreciable data because the season won't be starting later in the year. As the article seems to cover the state of the season to this point, I'd normally consider this eligible, but I'd want to hear from other DYK reviewers on the subject. Is the problem that these tables are shown in advance of the season? Or is this a larger issue? I'm sorry I didn't appreciate the issues behind the WT:DYK post before it was archived. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- A similar page I created recently, 2012–13 RFU Championship has a table in it that has no scores and is based on the table of the previous season as the playoffs haven't finished and it wasn't a problem when it went through DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Need an experienced DYK reviewer to rule on the concerns expressed above. If they wouldn't prevent an approval, then a full review will need to be done. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC) (Revised 18:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC))
- I fixed the citation thing. Someone removed the source I originally used for that statement for some reason. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The article is plenty long enough, but it includes a number of references that are lacking publisher information, a retrieval date and other detail: the majority of those from Ref #20 onwards, while Ref #16 is a bare URL. The hook fact is referenced inline, and a few spot checks reveal no evidence of copy vio or close paraphrasing. Harrias talk 13:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see. As doing all that would be quite tedious, I've asked Rjwilmsi if he could run his bot over the page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- That didn't work as well as I planned so I have done the tedious option manually. You should find that the issue has been sorted. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see. As doing all that would be quite tedious, I've asked Rjwilmsi if he could run his bot over the page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
