Template:Did you know nominations/Baleen whale
- 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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a 5x expansion
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Baleen whale
[edit]- ... that baleen whales, although carnivorous, have gut flora similar to that of herbivores?
- ALT1:... that baleen whales, although carnivorous, have gut flora similar to that of herbivores?
- Comment: I'm in the process of reviewing Spiro Crne
5x expanded by Dunkleosteus77 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
New enough, checks for copyvio reveals no problems (e.g. [1]), hook and alt content is backed with an inline citation to a reliable source in the article. Nominator is in the process of performing a QPQ review. Technically, the article has not been expanded 5x, because content in the tables in the version of the article prior to improvement (diff) is not included in the prose size. However, content in the tables was extensive, and essentially functioned as part of the article's actual prose, which was simply organized into large-blocked tables. I'm not against this nomination moving forward, but to ensure fairness, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Baleen whale DYK to obtain views from others. North America1000 20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would include the prose in the table as part of the character count. What expansion coefficient is the article at with that included as prose? If it's close to 5, personally I may apply good faith as removing the table format is a significant improvement for the article. Jolly Ω Janner 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Trimmed "being" from both hooks, as it adds nothing of value. Edwardx (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
While this appears to be an excellent rewrite, it sadly does not qualify as a 5x expansion. According to DYKcheck, this had 16331 prose characters as of January 19, and 36785 prose characters today, or a 2.25x expansion, not nearly enough. (Note that DYKcheck did not count any of the material in the tables from the January 19 version, otherwise the expansion would be significantly smaller.) Although this is not eligible for DYK at the present time, it would be if the article were nominated to be a Good Article and listed; the nomination would need to occur within seven days of it being approved for GA. I do hope you will return to DYK at that point. Thanks for the submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
