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 Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: After building several preps with no representation outside of North America and Europe, I am making a push to get articles from under-represented areas into DYK. This is nomination 9 in that effort.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: New enough and long enough (barely). The article is still tagged as a stub but perhaps the article can be expanded slightly and this can be removed? In particular, I would split the "History" section into multiple paragraphs rather than having one single long paragraph. Sourcing and neutrality seem OK, and plagiarism does not seem to be an issue (Earwig stands at 3.8%). Hook interesting and cited in a blog which is not the best of sources, but it is also cited in a book so good faith is assumed. QPQ done. Overall seems OK and almost good to go, but I would prefer if the article is expanded slightly to get rid of the stub status before it makes its way to the main page. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Xwejnusgozo: It would be nice if the author expanded the article, but there's no rule in the DYK criteria that an article can't be a stub, only that it has to be a certain length (1,500 characters). This article is 1,620 characters. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I used the Reviewing guide, which states that "in addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub". In addition the DYK rules state that "articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short." As it currently stands, the article seems to be a stub to me (although this is just my opinion since there's no concrete definition of what a stub is). I don't want to reject this nomination, but I think the article needs slightly more content in order to be adequate for the main page. Perhaps the article's author Robert Prazeres (talk·contribs) can try to make some further additions (perhaps to the "Description" section which is only two sentences long)? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Drive-by comment: Per Rule D11: If an article otherwise qualifies for DYK, it is not a stub, and any stub tag should be removed before promotion.
So the main question, per Rule D7, is whether the article is start-class? Does it adequately cover the subject, even if it's on the short side. IMO this article does qualify under D7. Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xwejnusgozo: please don't get hung up on the presence of a stub tag. Many editors leave them even after they've done a 5x expansion. It's up to us as reviewers to remove the tag (and also update the talk page ratings) when passing or promoting a DYK nomination. In this case, I've removed the stub tag and updated the talk page ratings. Yoninah (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xwejnusgozo: It is your call whether an article adequately covers a subject, in which case it is start-class, not stub-class. Looking at this article, it has all the topics laid out but does not go into much detail on them. If it were a National Register of Historic Places site and had a Description section of two sentences, I would ask for more detail. But in this case, the article does lay out the main points and is only waiting for another editor to come along and expand it. (Which is another purpose of posting it on the main page, where more people can get involved and improve it.) As far as I'm concerned, you could pass this. Best, Yoninah (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah, Robert Prazeres, and The Squirrel Conspiracy: In light of the above comments and the edits which expanded the Description section a bit I think it's good to go now. Thanks to everyone involved - it's great to see articles such as this taking shape. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Glad the added details helped a little. (In the future I hope to expand the article with a couple of scholarly sources I know of, but I have to wait for libraries to reopen over here before I can consult them, unfortunately.) Thanks for nominating this article. Cheers, Robert Prazeres (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
New enough and long enough (barely). The article is still tagged as a stub but perhaps the article can be expanded slightly and this can be removed? In particular, I would split the "History" section into multiple paragraphs rather than having one single long paragraph. Sourcing and neutrality seem OK, and plagiarism does not seem to be an issue (Earwig stands at 3.8%). Hook interesting and cited in a blog which is not the best of sources, but it is also cited in a book so good faith is assumed. QPQ done. Overall seems OK and almost good to go, but I would prefer if the article is expanded slightly to get rid of the stub status before it makes its way to the main page. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah, Robert Prazeres, and The Squirrel Conspiracy: In light of the above comments and the edits which expanded the Description section a bit I think it's good to go now. Thanks to everyone involved - it's great to see articles such as this taking shape. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)