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 BorgQueen (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
... that after police officer James Farrell suspected that his friend and colleague Thomas Ryan had shot him, he lost to Ryan in court, and had him arrested? Source: Green, David. "James Farrell". Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 23 April 2017. "Farrell was shot several times near his home by a man he recognised as Ryan. Amid enormous publicity Ryan was tried twice for attempted murder [...] After Ryan's eventual acquittal [...] the unhinged Farrell sought revenge by arresting his rival on a firearms charge for which there was little evidence."
ALT1: ... that police officer James Farrell found his friend and colleague Thomas Ryan in an affair with his wife? Source: Green, David. "James Farrell". Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 23 April 2017. "In 1870 Farrell discovered that his wife was having an affair with his friend and colleague Sergeant Thomas Ryan, whom he warned off."
oh, i didn't expand it, just nominated it. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This appears to have been expanded principally on 7 April 2023 (ending in this version, but it was not nominated until 18 April 2023 (when the article was this version). The current article is not 5x expanded from the version I linked on 7 April 2023, so it fails WP:DYKCRIT#1a if that is the 5x expansion being referred to above. If we are talking about the 5x expansion beginning on 7 April, then I think this runs afoul of WP:DYKCRIT#1a for being nominated 11 calendar days post-expansion (well after 7 days post-expansion). As such, I don't think this nomination satisfies DYK criteria no matter how this is sliced, and I'd like another reviewer to take a look at this one to see if I'm missing something here. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 19:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I think i somehow read the article as being nominated on the 14 April instead of 18 April for some reason. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Are we currently in agreement that this does not meet the relevant newness criterion noted above? — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There is some, but I don't think that it extends a greater-than-50% variance on the timing. It may be worth bringing this up on WT:DYK if there's disagreement. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
lettherebedarklight, I think Red-tailed hawk is correct on this one. 11 days is a bit late for my taste (although you're free to seek an exemption at a wider venue, like WT:DYK), we usually don't let nominations that late get on through. If the article is expanded fivefold again, or brought to GA status, it'll be eligible again :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lettherebedarklight: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
This appears to have been expanded principally on 7 April 2023 (ending in this version, but it was not nominated until 18 April 2023 (when the article was this version). The current article is not 5x expanded from the version I linked on 7 April 2023, so it fails WP:DYKCRIT#1a if that is the 5x expansion being referred to above. If we are talking about the 5x expansion beginning on 7 April, then I think this runs afoul of WP:DYKCRIT#1a for being nominated 11 calendar days post-expansion (well after 7 days post-expansion). As such, I don't think this nomination satisfies DYK criteria no matter how this is sliced, and I'd like another reviewer to take a look at this one to see if I'm missing something here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
lettherebedarklight, I think Red-tailed hawk is correct on this one. 11 days is a bit late for my taste (although you're free to seek an exemption at a wider venue, like WT:DYK), we usually don't let nominations that late get on through. If the article is expanded fivefold again, or brought to GA status, it'll be eligible again :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)