- 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) 05:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ethel Thomas edit
- ... that the botanist Ethel Thomas designed the University of London's botany garden in Regent's Park?
Created by Worm That Turned (talk). Self-nominated at 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC).
Some issues found.
- ✗ This article is old and was created on 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) and expanded between 7 & 8 May 2016. In the past 7 days, only categories have been added.
- ✓ Going by Wikipedia:DYKPN, the article might qualify as it was expanded more than three fold on 7 & 8 May.
- ✓ Article is long enough.
✗ Lead section does not have any inline citations.- ✓ Hook is properly sourced and verified.
- ✓ Article has no outstanding maintenance tags. However, the DYK nomination has not been mentioned on the article TalkPage.
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is of appropriate length.
- ✓ QPQ done. Nominator had reviewed Vinod Kumar Dahiya. Total 40 DYK credits till date.
- ✓ No COI or non-neutral tone noticed.
- Note. Nominator had placed the DYK under wrong date (10 Jul 2016). The nomination should have been filed under the date the expansion started.
Worm That Turned to kindly address all the issues. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Arun, The article was created today - prior to this, it was in userspace. Therefore it does meet the newness criteria - I'm surprised you didn't notice that. Further, per WP:Lead, the lead should only include inline citations if the information is likely to be challenged. There is absolutely no reason to think any of the information in the lead will be challenged especially as it is all cited within the article. Finally, the reference does confirm the hook. ODNB states "She designed the botany garden at the Regent's Park site to which the college moved in 1913", referring to Bedford College, University of London. I can't the issue - I can add "Bedford College" before University of London if that helps but I believe this the University's only botany garden in Regents Park. WormTT(talk) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Worm That Turned. I am replying to your message left on my TalkPage here and your comments up. Firstly, this edit shows when the article was created on 8 Jan 2016 and then page move was performed. Now how are we treating such cases? As far as the lead section is concerned, the DYK guidelines say "A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere". Although it can be interpreted in two ways, I am chaining the review for this point. As far as sourcing hook it concerned, this is strange, last time I opened the links, the ODNB link did not open up after several attempts and now it does and I can read it. So I guess we are good there now. So that leaves us with only one open point, date of article creation. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Worm That Turned. Since you had not done it, I have added
{{Did you know nominations/Ethel Thomas}}to the article's talk page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- AKS.9955, the page move you reference in [1] is from a User talk subdirectory to a User subdirectory, so the article is still not in article space at that point, and thus not yet officially created. This move, on July 10, is the one that took it from User space to article space, and thus the one that counts as the moment of creation for DYK purposes. (Which means the nomination was correctly placed under July 10 on the DYK nominations page.) You might want to try running DYKcheck; it gives the same date regarding the move. Finally, there is no requirement anywhere that the DYK nomination be mentioned on the article talk page. It might be nice to have, but most people don't do it, and it's absolutely not required. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, thanks for clarifying. I know that there is no requirement that DYK nomination be mentioned on the talkpage and that's why I just mentioned it against a green tick mark and did not insist for it.
- Worm That Turned. Since you had not done it, I have added
, In view of the clarification above, giving green tick mark to the DYK nomination. Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. Hook ok and properly sourced. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
