Template:Did you know nominations/Greek government-debt crisis countermeasures
- 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) 23:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Length
Greek government-debt crisis countermeasures
[edit]- ... that the current Greek debt crisis is estimated to reach a debt-to-GDP ratio of 189.1% in 2013, 95% more than the remaining Eurozone?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Right Now (Rihanna song)
Created/expanded by Jax 0677 (talk). Nominated by Rcsprinter123 (talk) at 15:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple red cite errors down in the references section, which look like it's probably due to formatting. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. Looks like when it was merged from a parent article the original refs didn't get moved along with the name. Now I fixed that, everything should be OK? Rcsprinter (shout) @ 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A spin-off article much-needed. Newness ok; size: 32755 B (5290 words) "readable prose size" from 32259 B (5210 words) at spinoff: a 496 B difference, so likely does not meet the fivefold expansion requirement. Meets most minimum citation requirements, but there are some [which?] and [specify] tags that should be corrected. Hook of 134 characters is interesting, if not fascinating, (devastating would be more like it, unfortunately for all of us.) Given the article's length and complexity, it could use more cites, especially in those sections that are forward-looking (estimating future effects). The article also needs to be more concise, if possible: it is not exactly encyclopedic in style as it includes a great deal of detail that might be better done in WP:SS, even though those reading the article might be looking for just what it offers. Perhaps some more-highly-structured lists within the article might help. Nonetheless, I found it to be good reading. Because of the fivefold expansion requirement though, unless I've missed something, it does not appear to satisfy that criteria. — Sctechlaw (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. Spun-off articles must be increased by 5x in order to qualify as new. This one is almost entirely pre-existing material with little new, and therefore does not qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
