Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Young Pickersgill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PumpkinSky talk 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mary Young Pickersgill

[edit]

Mary Young Pickersgill

Created/expanded by Sarnold17 (talk). Self nom at 02:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I've replaced the black and white image with a color image.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No offense, but this article at this time has not passed the 5X expansion requirement under WP:DYK rules. Between June 14 and current version, the expansion has been threefold, not fivefold. You can still expand it further for DYK, and you can either nominate it as Good Article Nominee or request a peer review on this article, as I see good effort you have done. However, if you don't want to expand it any further, and if it doesn't pass the 5X for days or weeks, then this nomination will likely be rejected. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot: prior days have no substantial addition of prose entries; just infobox, maintenance templates, and external links. I think June 16 is the right date to nominate, but... more expansion is needed. Also, some entries need citations, but I could be wrong... --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, and thank you for taking a look at this hook. Yes, I'm aware that the expansion is not 5X. I'm also aware that the guidelines for DYK are guidelines, and not cast in stone. For this reason, I ask that you allow an admin person to take a look and pass judgment. The well is dry for Mary, so there won't be any further expansion, because I'm not willing to throw in a bunch of fluff. However, since the amount of material that has been added is probably greater than the typical 5x expansion, it is worth letting the powers that be take a look. The material in the hook is all new to the article. I think this DYK is important, since we've already begun to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, and I would like to run this DYK during the upcoming (198th) anniversary of the Battle of Baltimore in September. So, if you wouldn't mind would you give this hook a or rather than a , and see if it can run. If not, I have plenty else to turn my attention to. Many thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, for me, I'm not thrilled with this topic, but I'm intrigued by it and the hook. Someone who has more interest with this hook and this person may review this topic with great skill and great judgment. If any administrator doesn't mind per WP:IAR, then I don't know what to say. To me, I'm a rule-follower more than a sympathizer, but I've done previously nominating articles that do not make 5X expansion, honestly. Let's leave this to an administrator then? --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)