Template:Did you know nominations/David Hall (Wheelchair tennis)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Globalwheels (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

David Hall (Wheelchair tennis)

(

)

Australia’s greatest ever wheelchair tennis player

Created/expanded by KansaiDan (talk). Nominated by KansaiDan (talk) at 23:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that David Hall (pictured) competed professionally in wheelchair tennis for more than a decade before officially retiring from competition in 2006?

ALT2: … that David Hall (pictured) won the Australian Open Wheelchair tennis title nine times between 1995 and 2005?

ALT3: ... that David Hall (pictured) was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2010?

ALT4: ... that wheelchair tennis player, David Hall (pictured), was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2010?

Alternative written because of possible bias issues with suggestion. Suggestions are supported by sources. (Not reviewing. Just suggesting alternatives.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
~~For now decline~~ for the following reasons: The expansion of the article has happended within 5 days since/before nomination, but it has not been expanded by 5 times the size of the article previously, yes the total bites has by the prose I don't think so. Although tbf you did start from 2 lines of stub. Nearly there bit more work fill out his career, also bare URL's .In addition however ALT1 sucks. And I know for a fact that there is a credabilty issue with ALT2 due to the confusing nature of the Australian Open/Wheelchair tennis classic 8s (GS tournie), and the Australian/Melbourne Open, which needs to be made clear I know which one you're talking about and yes the fact is valid, but needs to be made clear. Regards Globalwheels (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I used the DYK template and it said the article was was expanded five times. Could you tell me the exact word count difference that prevented it from getting to five fold expansion? I would never have suggested to the nominator that it wasn't valid if the DYK check didn't say it was valid. And if it wasn't get there now, then it will need another five fold expansion before it will be eligible again.
Comment I haven't chucked it out so why would you want to start it again? It is long enough over 1,500 characters, it is NOT based on word count which is about 650 atm. I estimate from using word that it has been expanded 10 fold. However all my other points do stand. The first ALT sucks, the second one although valid does need to be explained. And the article must not have bare urls. Regards Globalwheels (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Two other DYK could be that he is the 2000 Paralympic Wheelchair tennis champion, or that he is one of 6 ITF wheelchair tennis ambassadors. We now have four ideas, with in my mind three solid ones. I'll leave it up to you two to make the call on which one you want to use. Globalwheels (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Go with ALT3 then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: You appear to have declined the article as a DYK nomination. This should mean: This DYK nomination is closed. The article needs to be expanded five times its now current length to be eligible. There is now Decline for now. Can you remove your decline for now, and offer alternatives? I'm not the nominator or approving it. I offered the original alternatives because I wanted to support KansaiDan, a new Paralympic related editor who I thought made some great contributions in expanding the article five fold from its original length. If it is an official decline, then can you put the reject in there? Or if this is not an official decline, can you remove the decline and include the alternates you proposed in the section for alternatives so that another person who approves/rejects DYKs can evaluate the article? --LauraHale (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope Still got bare urls so it still fails at the moment. Sorry. When that's fixed I'll change my decline for now status because at the moment I have grounds if you see what I mean to oppose this nomination, so I think it's fair to say decline for now, as I have added ideas on how to improve it. And no I am not doing the last thing cause I get the impression that you are trying to railroad this through by getting rid of an editor/reviewer who you don't agree with. Sorry, people can read this it's not long, and I as I said it's upto you and Kansai to decide which idea you want me to accept. Globalwheels (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment I have run a bot over the article to remove the raw URLs. Please WP:Assume good faith. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
And I've added all the ref metadata. Also added ALT4 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you John Vandenberg and Hawkeye7 for sorting all the issues out regarding references. We can now promote this DYK thanks to you two. All that is left is which one to use. I suggest that if we want to go with idea 3 that we use, John's alternative #4 as it is tighter for the reader to understand. Once again thanks! Globalwheels (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hook good, Lengh good, references in article good, article good lengh. Hook sourced. Globalwheels (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)