- 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) 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lonnie Warwick
edit- ... that Lonnie Warwick worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad in Arizona prior to signing a free agent contract with the Minnesota Vikings?
- Reviewed: Chris Taylor (baseball), Template:Did you know nominations/Osedax japonicus
- Comment: Note this is a Wikicup nomination.
Created/expanded by Secret (talk). Self nominated at 02:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC).
Article: New: Expanded from 394 to 1951 (4.95x expanded) - count from the javascript web-based tool, excluding section headings - just fails at the moment. Could you add another sentence somewhere? Long enough? Yes, over 1,500 characters. Within policy: Failed verification for playing every game between 1966 and 1970. Close paraphrasing concern with first line of NFL career. I can't see where the three fumbles recovered comes from, the stats at pro-football-reference don't show it. No supporting reference for the injury.
- Hook: reference names Southern Pacific Railroad. Otherwise it is interesting, neutral and accurate. Please propose ALT1 for better accuracy.
- A copyedit reduced the minimum from 5x expanded to 4.95x expanded. I'll add another sentence or two, but I do not see any close paraphrasing concerns, I fixed everything else. I was dealing with some conflicting sources while expanding the article, as for the QPQ I know the criteria well having done plenty of DYK reviews in the past. Secret account 18:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I see the part of the sentence in question now, but that should fall under WP:FACTSONLY Secret account 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you green lit the review of Chris Taylor without QPQ, which was then stopped by someone else and then re-reviewed from scratch would suggest otherwise. I am not commenting on your past reviews, only the one cited. The hook is now ok; QPQ, failed verification, and under-length outstanding. C679 20:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: As C679 points out, reviews that fail to note what has been reviewed—size, newness (or GA), neutrality, hook and article sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc.—are not being accepted as QPQs. Please be sure to include a summary of what your review found in the areas covered; the criteria are shown when you're in the editor on these pages. It makes life a lot easier for the people who are promoting approved articles to the prep areas when they know what the original review covered, and what it might have missed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I did a new QPQ and checked the source through my university archives? I'll expand it a sentence or two more. Sorry for the delay. Secret account 16:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Expanded, can this be rechecked? Thanks Secret account 17:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
All now checks out apart from the newness. Replacement QPQ is acceptable. Article was not 5x expanded in five days, eventually reaching it in 25 days, due to a three week delay by the nom in addressing earlier concerns. If @BlueMoonset: is happy regarding the newness, it can be promoted. C679 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- C679, a great many nominated articles are not long enough when they're first nominated, and eventually make the grade, at which point they're eligible for approval. An extra 20 days isn't great, but it's not the longest time either. We treat the newness requirement as having been met if the article is nominated within five days of the start of the expansion; if it falls short of the size at that time, making the 5x expansion level is what's needed as long as the review is still open (or, if a new article, finally exceeding the minimum number of prose characters). So in my opinion, it meets the 5x requirement for a DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
