- 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 PFHLai (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Amanda Carter
edit
- ... that Amanda Carter (pictured) was the oldest member of the Gliders at the 2012 Summer Paralympics, and the only one who had participated in 1992, 1996 and 2000 Summer Paralympics?
- Reviewed: KOI-872
Created/expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk), LauraHale (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me. Length, date, hook and offline source all seem fine. - JuneGloom Talk 00:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Not. quite. This is a 5X expansion:
- Currently, it is 7,368 characters
- On Sept 15 the day before LauraHale and Hawkeye7 began expansion it was 1,830 characters = 1,830 X 5 = 9,150
- It was 1,779 characters on August 16, 2012 1,779 x = 8,895
- Maile66 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is 9,863 bytes, which was above 5x expansion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- DYK Check says after yesterday's edits: 8,917 characters of readable prose right now. I'm going to relinquish this to another reviewer right now. I think you use a different tool to check the characters than I do. I'm only going by DYK. Maile66 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to note that I did check the expansion and believed it to be correct. However, I notice there has been quite a few changes since I reviewed it. - JuneGloom Talk 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- DYKcheck does indeed give 8,917 prose characters. It also says this is a 5x expansion since September 15, 2012. However, given the recent instability in the article, which included major text deletions and restorations, it's unsurprising that Maile66 checked at a point when the article didn't qualify because it was indeed below 5x (6,685 bytes had been removed). I would like to suggest that we wait 24 hours to make sure the article has stabilized before the review is finalized; whoever does so then should examine the changes since JuneGloom07's review to make sure they don't violate any DYK rules. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, everybody. Everybody in this thread has been correct, including me, at some point in the article's recent history. Timing was everything. I was just looking at the time I ran the first DYK check, and looked into the history where BlueMoonset says 6,685 bytes were removed. BlueMoonset is correct in that I ran that check after the byte deletion. Also looking at the history, had I run the DYK check a mere 2 minutes later, this whole dialogue would not be happening, because somebody reversed out the removal. Well, I hope this nom proceeds smoothly once the article stabilizes. Maile66 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to note that I did check the expansion and believed it to be correct. However, I notice there has been quite a few changes since I reviewed it. - JuneGloom Talk 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- DYK Check says after yesterday's edits: 8,917 characters of readable prose right now. I'm going to relinquish this to another reviewer right now. I think you use a different tool to check the characters than I do. I'm only going by DYK. Maile66 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is 9,863 bytes, which was above 5x expansion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maile66 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
