Template:Did you know nominations/Opon Ifá
- 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 MrClog (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Opon Ifá
[edit]... the Ifá divination system employs Opon Ifá to solve quotidian problems via communicating with spirits?
5x expanded by Sangbin1999 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC).
Despite some expansion, this is still quite a way short of a 5x expansion. See Wikipedia:Did you know for eligibility criteria. Spokoyni (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: to clarify, the article was 1534 prose characters prior to expansion, and is 4224 prose characters currently. It would need to expand further to meet the 5x expansion requirement to 7670 prose characters, or by more additional characters than have already been added (2690 have been added; another 3446 would be needed). If Sangbin1999 thinks there's enough encyclopedic material to add to reach 7670 prose characters, they're welcome to expand it further and let us know they'll be doing so over the next little while; otherwise, the nomination will have to be closed. Thanks. (I have formatted the hook so it meets DYK requirements.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Full review needed now that the article has reached 9207 prose characters, and is a 6x expansion, more than is needed for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Article is certainly long enough and of good quality/meeting all policies/well sourced. The time factor I'll leave to promotors to decide on - in future it will aid reviews if your nomination is made with the necessary expansion nearly or already completed, as this has taken several weeks to get to DYK length and technically the "new" aspect requires it to take no more than seven days. Is there any reason why "quotidian problems" is used instead of the more accessible "daily problems"? The article does not use "quotidian" at any point. And while the article discusses how the divination process works, there is no mention of what sort of problems, daily or otherwise, it is intended to help with. This would need to be explicitly sourced and added to the article. Spokoyni (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article creator doesn't seem to have edited much, or to be really engaged with this review. It's certainly DYK-worthy though, and its the hook that is the sticking point. I've added a few more options below that are sourced in the article, if @Sangbin1999: would like to comment, or another reviewer can confirm. BTW, from what I read in the article and the notes from their tutor, the plural of Opon Ifá is the same as the singular. Spokoyni (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Opon Ifá
- ALT1 ... that opon Ifá (pictured) are used in the Ifá divination system of Yoruba tradition?
- ALT2 ... that the design of opon Ifá (pictured) praise and acknowledge the work of the babalawo?
- Unfortunately, the nominator hasn't edited since May and was never able to respond to concerns that were raised. Unless another editor decides to adopt this, this is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- New reviewer needed, both to give the article a full review and to review the ALT hooks suggested by Spokoyni. The original hook has been struck due to the issues raised by Spokoyni, but many articles are nominated when not fully expanded and are belatedly expanded as this one was, so that factor should not be an issue. I don't see any other issues that are holding up the nomination at this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- After reviewing the article and its sources, I believe "opon Ifá" is the correct capitalization. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Ready 5× expansion on May 5 (a little late but I'm fine accepting this for the editor's first nomination and an underrepresented subject), long enough, neutral, well cited. No copyvio detected. Hooks ALT1 and ALT2 are properly formatted, neutral, cited in the article's lead, and broadly interesting. QPQ waived for first nomination. I included a picture for the hook, it's in the article, CC licensed, and displays well. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
