Template:Did you know nominations/Coimbatore bypass

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 Miyagawa (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Coimbatore bypass edit

(

)

... that the Coimbatore bypass included construction and tolling of a 32.2 metres (106 ft) bridge (pictured) over the Noyyal River in India?

Created/expanded by Rsrikanth05 (talk). Self nom at 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

~~I forgot to add the image.~~ It's File:Bridge-over-Noyyal-Aathupalam.jpg : ( --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

2288 characters, images are fine. Hook properly cited. All okay but 2 weeks old article and has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (14 days). So I leave this up to the DYK updater for final review :) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility is to expand the article by another 1669 characters and move it to January 31 or February 1, since the nomination template was created on February 5 and could have gone under. DYKcheck puts the number of characters on both days at 891, which would require 4455 to meet the 5x expansion rule; there are currently 2786 characters, which is a little over 3x. The article is classified as Start class for India, but Stub class for Highways; the latter would have to be changed to Start. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The article currently stands at 10824 bytes. Isn't it over 5x ??? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. Things like reference citations, pictures, and the infobox are not included. It's not bytes vs. bytes, it's characters in the "prose portion" of the article. Out of those 10824 bytes, 2786 are countable prose characters. But even if we could go by plain bytes, it still wouldn't be 5x: the article was over 3000 bytes at the end of January, so 10824 is also a little over 3x. You can get some expansion by spelling out acronyms, at least the first time, such as "NHAI" and "IVRCL", since a good many readers will have no idea which those are. Still, that's not likely to gain much more than 100 characters; if there's more germane information about a project, such as how long it might take to construct, by all means include it. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Aye aye Captain! Will do the expansions. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ready to go :). 3566 characters, is at 5x now, expansion began 71 edits ago on January 29, 2012. Someone please add to preparation area ASAP. Thanks -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to the original reviewer, it is only at 4x. Although DYcheck goes back ten days, the requirement is expansion "within the past five days" prior to nomination; this is noted above the window when this page is edited. For a February 5 nomination template creation, expansion has to have begun no earlier than January 31, 2012; January 29 is not within the required five-day window. Another 889 characters are needed to make the 5x level (4455 characters in all). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Added substantial bits of information to the article. I think it might have reached the target of 899 characters. ~~How do I check? User:Ansumang told me about a tool, but I can't seem to work it out.~~ --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, well above 5k characters now. : ) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now 6218 characters (998 words), expansion began on February 1. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 11:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is ready to be published. I'll move it to February 1 on the nominations page; it shouldn't be under January 21. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that phrasings and structures used in this article might be too close to those used by sources. Consider for example this source - much of the material cited to it is nearly identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ansumang and I are working on it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's have an independent re-check before sending this to the prep area again. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fresh eyes please :) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 06:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay! This is fine now. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)