Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Fosterfields

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 SL93 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Fosterfields

(
)

5x expanded by Evedawn99 (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 01:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: dawnleelynn(talk) 16:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  • looks like the article started out at 1537 prose characters before Evedawn99 expanded it; the revision as of this comment stands at 5642 prose characters. While not unimpressive, that's only a 3.7x expansion; the article'll need to reach 7685 characters to qualify under 5x expansion; or, of course, it can be taken to GA status. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Theleekycauldron I used the Javascript Kit Cut & Paste Count listed on the main DYK page. I didn't reslize there was a Page Size link on the article itself. Very helpful. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    evedawn99 and thriley I've been advised that the expansion of content falls short of the rules. It has 5642 prose characters and needs 7685. Thanks...the other cite question still remains too. and QPQ. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    I should have looked at it more closely.. I guess I was so excited about all the work Evedawn99 did that I didn’t notice that it wasn’t a full 5x. Thriley (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thriley It's understandable. I got it wrong myself. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 23:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    May I help? Revere is very much up my alley, so to speak. I'll work on adding more details about him. BusterD (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    BusterD You didn't ping anyone, oops? :) I'm sure Thriley would appreciate the help though. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry for my sudden enthusiasm. Foster is a fascinating figure herself, who deserves more coverage. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you! I think there's plenty more to add about the farm itself as well. Thriley (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Dawnleelynn: Did we make it to the required amount of characters? I’m not sure how to check that. Thriley (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thriley You needed 7685. You now have 8224. On the article left side, there's a link "Page Size" which is how you check. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thriley Thanks for the QPQ. We are still in need of fixing the hook up. The content, source, and URL in this template do not appear in this article. There is some content in the article which could be used to support the hook and probably some source. Also, new material introduced some errors to the sources. See the errors for citations 12 and 16. Thanks for your help. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This nomination had disappeared when it was closed and later reopened; I've restored it to the Nominations page. One thing that no one mentioned was that the expansion started on March 30 but the nomination wasn't made until April 9, ten days later (rather than the required seven). While it is possible for exceptions to be made, to say that it clearly passes the newness criterion is not factually correct, and this should be addressed at some point. It's important that nominator Thriley address the outstanding issues; pinging reviewer dawnleelynn to let them know that the nomination is once again visible on the Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dawnleelynn: It looks like all issues with the article have been fixed. What do you think? Thriley (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Thriley: BlueMoonset I have marked as okay again with the green circle. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) dawnleelynn, thanks, but once the original review has been superseded by another icon, which happens just below your review, any further icons must be supplied lower down: it's the last/lowest icon that indicates the current status of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dawnleelynn: What about ALT1 * ... that in 1973, Caroline Rose Foster donated her farm Fosterfields to the Parks Commission of Morris County, New Jersey to be preserved as a functioning farm from 1920? Source: [1]. I think it flows better and is more interesting. Thriley (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Thriley: It's at least equally interesting to more interesting. Do you want to add it to the template or would you like me to do so? The ultimate decision is up to the promoting editor. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)n on the page that indicates the current review status. In this case, if the new ALT1 below checks out and you approve it, placing a new approval icon below when you post your comment there will indicate that the nomination and hook have been passed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thriley BlueMoonset Okay I added Alt1, updated the source in the article and in the hook. I approve this nominiation now. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fosterfields&oldid=1088265665"