Template:Did you know nominations/Mozambique Rain Frog
- 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: promoted by Redtigerxyz Talk 18:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Mozambique Rain Frog
[edit]- ... that the female Mozambique rain frog lays her eggs in an underground chamber and often stays nearby while they develop?
- Reviewed: Lord Richard Cavendish (1794–1876)
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nom at 13:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Review:
- Article - 1) New: Expanded on October 15 from May 21 version 2) Long Enough: not long enough (1081 characters, only expanded about 2x instead of 5x 3) Within Policy: Meets core policies
- Hook - 1) Format: 144 characters, meets guidelines 2) Content: Cited, neutral and interesting
- Other: 1) Quid pro quo: Completed 2) Image: No image
: Nomination does not qualify - it does not meet the guidelines for length or expansion. IvoShandor (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it wasn't expanded sufficiently, but how are you counting? I see expansion from 526 chars to 2361 chars, a 4.48x expansion. Chris857 (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you measure length -- I go by word count. The original length was 70 words and my nominated version was 396 words, a 5.6x expansion. Nevertheless, I have now expanded it further from a new source and it is currently 477 words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've always operated under the DYK guidelines, which, unless this has changed since I was a regular here, is done by characters. If I am mistaken please ignore. I'll take a look at it later tonight, at a glance, it seems like it might be long enough, but I'll have to double check. Please advise if length shouldn't be measured by characters as laid out in the guidelines.IvoShandor (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I got the count I did . . . . obviously it was off. I'm sorry. As I said, I'll take another look tonight. IvoShandor (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've always operated under the DYK guidelines, which, unless this has changed since I was a regular here, is done by characters. If I am mistaken please ignore. I'll take a look at it later tonight, at a glance, it seems like it might be long enough, but I'll have to double check. Please advise if length shouldn't be measured by characters as laid out in the guidelines.IvoShandor (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you measure length -- I go by word count. The original length was 70 words and my nominated version was 396 words, a 5.6x expansion. Nevertheless, I have now expanded it further from a new source and it is currently 477 words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Still needs a review. Note to Cwmhiraeth: DYK rules for minimum size and expansion are expressed in "prose characters", so words aren't a metric that should be used in reviews. DYKcheck does confirm that the article has been expanded 5x, so that shouldn't be an issue in the final review here. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I count about 2866 characters vs. 526 characters of prose now, i.e. 5.4× expansion. Looks good to go for me. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
