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 —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 21:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: This article is new enough and long enough. Looking at the article's history, I fail to find any mention of Adodwell. From the point of view of DYK, the image is OK, the hook fact is cited, the article is neutral and there are no copyright issues. However, it's such a skimpy article, saying little or nothing about the types of harvesters and how they work, why weeds become clogging, the problems caused by the weed, what is done with the cut weed etc. Instead the article gives a few brief examples of locations around the world where aquatic weed has been cleared with harvesters. It seems such a missed opportunity for a decent article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
See the earliest Revision history for the article, where it denotes User:Adodwell's creation of the page. North America1000 14:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: The thing about all of this is, the article meets all of the criteria for DYK at this time, but you are seeming to require much additional work based upon your own subjective rules rather than the rules at WP:WIADYK. The article can always be expanded, now, while it's a DYK entry, and afterward. While your suggestions above are appreciated and useful, they are more aligned with the notion of bringing the article up to Good article standards, rather than DYK standards, the latter of which are based upon showcasing new or expanded articles. Please see also: point #1 of What DYK is not. I recommend that you post your suggestions for article improvement on the article's talk page. North America1000 14:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't seem to have looked back as far as 2013! Nor did I say it required the things I mentioned, just that it would benefit from them. I had thought of adding further information to the article myself but can see it won't be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
N.b. I have replied further regarding the latter of the above at the reviewer's talk page. I don't mind the article being improved at all. North America1000 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This nomination probably needs re-assessing because the article has become a co-operative effort and been considerably enlarged. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding, Northamerica1000! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: This article is new enough and long enough. Looking at the article's history, I fail to find any mention of Adodwell. From the point of view of DYK, the image is OK, the hook fact is cited, the article is neutral and there are no copyright issues. However, it's such a skimpy article, saying little or nothing about the types of harvesters and how they work, why weeds become clogging, the problems caused by the weed, what is done with the cut weed etc. Instead the article gives a few brief examples of locations around the world where aquatic weed has been cleared with harvesters. It seems such a missed opportunity for a decent article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't seem to have looked back as far as 2013! Nor did I say it required the things I mentioned, just that it would benefit from them. I had thought of adding further information to the article myself but can see it won't be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This nomination probably needs re-assessing because the article has become a co-operative effort and been considerably enlarged. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding, Northamerica1000! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Passes DYK checklist. Good To Go. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)