Template:Did you know nominations/Nishiki, Kumamoto
- 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 Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nishiki, Kumamoto
[edit]... that the Japanese town of Nishiki, Kumamoto plans to turn an old Imperial Japanese Navy airbase into a tourist attraction?
- ALT1:... that a mysterious WWII airbase of the former Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service located at Nishiki, Kumamoto is currently being surveyed with a view to eventually opening it up to tourists?
- Comment: Have not yet exceeded the 5 DYK nominations/Quid pro quo limit, so I haven't reviewed any DYK noms so far.
5x expanded by Ceannlann gorm (talk). Self-nominated at 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC).
- Article is a 5x expansion (nominated in a timely manner) but falls slightly short (about 500 bytes) of the required length (i.e., prior to expansion it was 1,103 bytes, it is now 5,051 but needs to be at least 5,515). Aside from that, the article is neutral, does not appear to have any close paraphrasing, and is cited. The hook is cited and both main and alternate are short enough. QPQ seach indicates less than 5 DYKs. Personally, I like the ALT (unless there are objections to the word mysterious as inferred from the article).
For nowbut I am inclined to support if fixed.--Godot13 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
pending additional expansion,
- Hi Godot13. I have added some more material to the article that should put it over the top, length wise. Using the Alt hook is fine with me, and I've adjusted the nomination accordingly. Thanks again! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Article is a 5x expansion (nominated in a timely manner) but falls slightly short (about 500 bytes) of the required length (i.e., prior to expansion it was 1,103 bytes, it is now 5,051 but needs to be at least 5,515). Aside from that, the article is neutral, does not appear to have any close paraphrasing, and is cited. The hook is cited and both main and alternate are short enough. QPQ seach indicates less than 5 DYKs. Personally, I like the ALT (unless there are objections to the word mysterious as inferred from the article).
