- 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: rejected by Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Length
Nucai
edit- ... that during the Qing Dynasty, only Manchu officials could use the self-deprecatory term "Nucai" in front of the Emperor of China?
- Comment: Only Manchu official also implies that Han Chinese officials could not use the term.
- Reviewed: The Great Enigma
Created/expanded by Colipon (talk). Self nom at 18:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Not a five-times expansion. Article was at 1403 characters when Colipon started expanding it, and 2849 when he finished. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but the article's pre-expansion state was deplorable. A lot of effort was put into actually fixing the totally unreadable and unencyclopedic content, not to mention the scrubbing of non-notable external links etc. In other words, while in pure character-bytes terms, this may not have been a 'five-times expansion', in reality about 90% of the old article was replaced and then on top of that the article was expanded two-fold. So please take these extenuating circumstance into consideration. Colipon+(Talk) 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- That "pre-expansion state" version you linked to, though, is from September 2009, which is way too old to ignore all rules for. This is a decent expansion, as it definitely improves the article's encyclopedic value, but it doesn't come close enough to the DYK rule of 5x in 5 days, either in terms of content added or timeframe. If an admin wants to overrule me, that's fine, but based on the DYK rules, I can't sign off on it. I would suggest you think about taking this to WP:GA as perhaps a more appropriate route of promoting the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but the article's pre-expansion state was deplorable. A lot of effort was put into actually fixing the totally unreadable and unencyclopedic content, not to mention the scrubbing of non-notable external links etc. In other words, while in pure character-bytes terms, this may not have been a 'five-times expansion', in reality about 90% of the old article was replaced and then on top of that the article was expanded two-fold. So please take these extenuating circumstance into consideration. Colipon+(Talk) 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
