- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Aromatization edit
... that "moderately aromatic" arsoles can be produced?
- Comment: History discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Aromatization. Arguably it has been new from a redirect and x5 expanded, but it is now around 13000 characters so I hope the nomination delay after my hospital visit and other personal issues will be excused. Review needed (to follow). I am placing under 19 May as the date of my first edit (at which point it was about 1000 characters).
5x expanded by EdChem (talk). Self-nominated at 09:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC).
- The May 19 date of the beginning of expansion puts this 3 days past the 7-day criteria for nomination. I believe we can allow 3 days of wiggle room on this one, per Did you know/Not exactly
P1: If your article was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations, it may still be approved. So you have at least seven days, but probably a few more.
As of this nomination, the oldest date listed under Older nominations is April 4.— Maile (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Also happy to let this go through with a little leeway on the date particularly given the hookiness. Length, general use of inline citations all good, will AGF on citations behind paywalls. Awaiting the QPQ still from EdChem but will be good to go once it is complete - Basement12 (T.C) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- The May 19 date of the beginning of expansion puts this 3 days past the 7-day criteria for nomination. I believe we can allow 3 days of wiggle room on this one, per Did you know/Not exactly
- This should be considered for April 1 2017. Also, I know some WP editors who would be immeasurably easier to deal with if at least they could be made moderately aromatic. Also, I should point out that in the article passage reading, "The diiodo analogue of the lithium salt can be used in its place", the word dildo has been misspelled. EEng 05:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have continued to work on the article and am considering nominating it for GA. It needs more expansion, there is still a significant section missing, but I think it is on the way. However, other perspectives are welcome. :) It is also possible to further shorten the hook:
- (ALT1): ... that there are "moderately aromatic" arsoles?
- I am not sure about holding it nearly 10 months (@BlueMoonset: thoughts?) and it could even go FA by then (if it is good enough, obviously). EdChem (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @EEng: LOL, I didn't notice that. It's an atypical one, too, as it is symmetric and so double-headed, so the arsole formation occurs by attack on both ends at once... EdChem (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Really! While I don't mind the little joke now and then, there are limits! EEng 17:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Basement12: QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/James Bond (naval officer) in line with WP:DYK#QPQ credit thread. EdChem (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset and Maile66: for opinions on holding until next April Fools. EdChem (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Funny you should ask, because that's exactly what went through my mind once Basement12 explained the joke (pun, you might say). It certainly qualifies "in the year immediately preceding the April 1" criteria. Go for it. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) EdChem, it's entirely up to you, and whether you want to wait ten months. (It's a long time to wait.) If you go ahead now, it's sure to be in the quirky slot (last hook) of the set; it could be anywhere but first in an April Fools set, and would fit in nicely. Note that if there had been any issues raised with the timing of the nomination, April Fools simply requires that the article was created/expanded since the most recent April 1, so this nomination would have been eligible for April Fools regardless. However, there weren't, and you don't have to wait unless you want to. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Maile and BlueMoonset for your advice. My preference is to use ALT1 in the quirky spot soon. EdChem (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
QPQ now complete, ALT hook is confirmed by the visible abstract of the cited article. GTG with ALT1 asap rather than waiting for next April - Basement12 (T.C) 11:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
