Template:Did you know nominations/Antonietta Di Martino
- 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 rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Antonietta di Martino
[edit]- ... that Antonietta Di Martino, tall just 1.69m, but able of jumping 2.04m, with 35cm is the woman with the largest high jump differentials at the World?
- Reviewed: Gelindo Bordin
Created/expanded by Kasper2006 (talk). Self nom at 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think the following is a little better hook, but might benefit from further tweaking:
- ALT1: ... that Antonietta Di Martino, who is 1.69 m (5 ft 7 in) tall, jumped 2.04 m (6 ft 8 in), making her the woman with the largest high jump differential, 35 cm (14 in), in the world? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok for me, but the international rules of athletics (see alla IAAF o EAA competitions), don't using imperial system. --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
DYK check gives "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 174 edits ago on June 17, 2007" - so not a recent enough expansion. With the 27 September 2012 version before the expansion began the article was at 2907 "readable prose size". It is now at 4132. Getting up to 14,535, needed for 5x expansion, seems very unlikely. Also, there are more unsourced assertions than I would like, and the citations do not all match the text. Cite 1 says nothing about the sentences it follows. Cite 2 does not mention the European Indoor Championships etc. I don't see that this one can qualify. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. It's been almost nine days since the previous comment, and the prose count is still 4132 characters. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Now 4923. I'm working, please wait a moment. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
IMPORTANT In Eligibility criteria I read «Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.)» That is, the article is well within the eligibility criteria, the minimum is 1500 not 15000. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You quoted from section 2 a of the rules. But look above the one you quoted. Section 1 b says that if it's an expansion of an existing article, that expansion must be at least five times and the expansion must be completed no more than five days before nomination. Aymatth2 was being extra generous with the date. I would take the pre-expansion version to be the one on November 6, which has a prose size of 2,927 characters. For a five times expansion, it would have to be 14,625. It's currently 4,751, an expansion of 1.6 times. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- All this seems absurd to you? An article of 300 characters expanded to 1500 is OK, an article of 5000 characters should be expanded to 24900 if not good. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, because an article of 5000 characters, is already a decent article, and shouldn't be promoted in DYK (which is supposedly for new articles); the target of the expansion should be WP:GA. Either way, your article (even discounting the size) would fail DYK criteria on account of being of sub-standard English. Yazan (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't look at the speck, but you look at the beam, you would understand that instead know that a high jumper is capable of jumping 35 cm taller than its height, it is a story by DYN. ;-)--Kasper2006 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, because an article of 5000 characters, is already a decent article, and shouldn't be promoted in DYK (which is supposedly for new articles); the target of the expansion should be WP:GA. Either way, your article (even discounting the size) would fail DYK criteria on account of being of sub-standard English. Yazan (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- All this seems absurd to you? An article of 300 characters expanded to 1500 is OK, an article of 5000 characters should be expanded to 24900 if not good. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)