Template:Did you know nominations/Provinces of Laos

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Attapeu Province, Bokeo Province, Bolikhamsai Province, Champasak Province, Khammouane Province, Luang Namtha Province, Luang Prabang Province, Oudomxay Province, Phongsaly Province, Sainyabuli Province, Salavan Province, Savannakhet Province, Sekong Province, Xiangkhouang Province, Vientiane Province, Vientiane Prefecture

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that Attapeu, Bokeo, Bolikhamxai, Champasak, Houaphan, Khammouane, Luang Namtha, Luang Prabang, Oudomxai, Phongsali, Sainyabuli, Salavan, Savannakhet, Sekong, Xiangkhoang and the Vientiane Province and Prefecture form the provinces of Laos (pictured)?

Comment: This nomination will take me past my 1000th DYK. Jimbo Wales suggested featuring it as a single DYK feature. That would be good but if not possible can this appear on Christmas Day or something, would be nice to pass the 1000 mark at Christmas.

Comment: the hook links to the articles nominated should be bolded. Also I think a montage is too cluttered and a simple picture will be better for a DYK thumbnail. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Emboldened. If the article was to appear by itself , would the image look that cluttered?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Why not use a simpler pic that would be much more visible? I personally would like a blank image of Laos, demarcating the districts. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Map of Laos it is.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a map with a different colour for each province? The map we have here is fairly grey and low contrast looking and will not focus attention from readers. But I do like the idea of not having that montage! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Or we can simply go with a map of Laos.The provinces separately are not that visible. Maybe if the country as a whole is green, it shall look better. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but feel feel to make one out of File:Attapeu_Province-Laos.svg using paint if you want it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Tried to use as less striking colours as possible. If some colour needs to be changed, please tell me/do it yourself.

Yikes, that would make me want to change the DYK to "DYK that Laos is made from a Fruit Pastel lolly", makes me want to suck on Champasak Province rather than read it LOL. The image below would be better I think as it names the provinces..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I should simply stick with Article editing and keep my head out of images.

The other image, I suggested that mainly because the image linked to the provinces themselves. Also, the names of the provinces must be removed to stop clutter.

If we are going to use 100px, then we may as well use a plain outline of Laos? (Like the fruit pastel picture, only all the provinces are in the same dark green shade) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded. Take a look -

I seem to have a lot of free time. Look at this too (Cant generate a thumbnail)

How about using a smaller version of this image -

The only thing is that we can get rid of the legend on the map. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I like the look of any edition of File:Provinces of Laos, shaded.png even the candy edition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

PS this is still not transcluded at the template talk page, so is this nomination really live? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Transcluded. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Um.. Are we not trying to get it live on Christmas day?? TheOriginalSoni (talk)

I think it is too late, Dr B has already hit the 1000 DYK mark! At the rate articles are getting a review it will be actually later! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that. Quite sad that somehow those 3 articles snuck in.

But that does not mean we cannot push this hook for 25th or maybe the New Year's Eve. Surely a hook as good as this still deserves to be in either of those two days. And I think if some of us try, we can do this one before and faster than the others inorder to make it ready in time I have not reviewed any articles, but am ready to try my hand at them if someone can guide. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed: Joyas Prestadas & Maskanah & Janur Kuning & 1,1-Ethanedithiol & Sariamin Ismail & Phormosoma placenta. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not happy with this. I thought it was supposed to be going out on Christmas Day or New Year's Eve or something? Also, the least you can do is excuse us from QPQ!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you not happy about? 17 reviews take time and a concentration of active reviewers. While it has been three weeks since this was nominated, I don't think it's surprising that reviewing 17 articles has proved daunting, much less where to begin. I've added a link for this submission to the "old reviews" list on WT:DYK, which may get it some notice. I don't understand why you think there should be a free pass from the QPQ requirement; in any event, Rosiestep has already covered the first six, so only eleven more will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Houaphanh Province was partially missed (it was in the hook) so I have added it in the DYK nompage links, and my assessment table below but it is not in the credits yes.
The main problems I am finding are that the administrative divisons paragraph is often not cited. The hook fact (xyz is a province of Laos) is uncited, and therefore not confirmed. I am counting that the newness of the expansion is acceptable, because althoug expanding started on 1 December, no one would notice until the 12 when the article pages were overlaid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review with a table provided to monitor compliance. Also thanks for pointing out the missing credits Yes, credits have to be added.

In all articles the observations made in the last three columns have been complied. Citation to Administrative Divisions has been done. Specific citation to the list of provinces to conform to Hook fact has been done in the Geography section. As regards citation in Introduction you probably mean in the lead part of the article. This has been left without sourcing in Khammounm province (3 paras) and Luang Prabhang Province. Do you want the lead paras to be sourced? In case the lead paras are to be cited then we can do it since the same references are cited in other sections of the articles.

As regards the observations on the length of expansion on four artciles marked with cross mark in the table, I wish to clarify that: The Khammouane Province article expansion was started with 5421 ch counts on 1 December and when transferred to main space on 12 December it was 15,376 ch; in the Sayambuli Province, at the start of expansion on our user page was 7832 ch and when transferred on 12 December it was 19,591; in the Sekong Province article it was 5174 ch on 29 November (after deleting unsourced text) and when transferred it was 21,738 ch; in the Xiangkhouang Province article at the start of expansion on the user page it was 5021 ch (after deleting unsourced text) and when transferred it was 17,981. All these figures of ch are inclusive of infobox, imags, references, section headings etc. and not specifically to prose expansion. Hence, I request for a review of these four articles. I presume that I have now complied with all observations made in the exhaustive check table. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I will be waiting for your reply. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 02:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nvvchar, I will take a re-look tomorrow. Post deletion uncited statements for DYK does not count , and we count the amount of text before deletion. The DYC tool is what I was using to get the count as the count with infobox tables and list items gives inflated count. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed three more articles.Template:Did you know nominations/Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity Template:Did you know nominations/Sudha Varghese and Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Sherlock Holmes, London.--Nvvchar. 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed three more articles in this single hook Template:Did you know nominations/Ankarafantsika National Park, Greater big-footed mouse, Furcifer rhinoceratus--Nvvchar. 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All images have acceptable licenses. Hook interest is OK, not brilliant, but it would be hard to pack them all into one hook with other exciting statements. The length is over the top, but the number of linked articles makes up for this, and it can take the place of two hooks. File:Provinces of Laos, shaded.png looks te prettiest for the DYK if an image is used. So I would pick that one, even if the one with numbers is more informative. Because 4 articles have not managed to expand enough, and expansion to 5 times the original size is infeasible, 4 articles will not be able to claim credit for DYK, but they can still be linked from the Hook. So I propose the alt1 hook, almost the same in text but differing in bolding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

alt1 ... that Attapeu, Bokeo, Bolikhamxai, Champasak, Houaphan, Khammouane, Luang Namtha, Luang Prabang, Oudomxai, Phongsali, Sainyabuli, Salavan, Savannakhet, Sekong, Xiangkhoang and the Vientiane Province and Prefecture form the provinces of Laos (mapped)?

article	large	new	cited	policy	copyright	hook len	hook interest	hook cite	hook conf
Attapeu Province	yes	yes	~~Administrative divisions not cited~~	OK	clean			YES	YES
Bokeo Province	yes	expanded since 30/11 (stretched a few days here as done out of sandbox)	~~Administrative divisions not cited~~YES	OK	clean			yes	AGF
Bolikhamsai Province	yes	expanded 5x since 30 November	~~Administrative divisions not cited~~YES	OK	clean			yes	yes
Champasak Province	Yyes	expanded 5x since 30 November	yes	OK	clean			yes	yes
Houaphanh Province	yes	yes expanded over 5x from 5/12	~~administrative districts uncited, second para of history uncited~~YES	OK	clean			YES	YES (although spelled "Huaphanh")
Khammouane Province	yes	expanded 5x since 2/12	~~first 3 paragraphs uncited~~no longer needed	OK	clean			noYES	yes
Luang Namtha Province	yes	there is 7x expansion	~~first para uncited~~(now hook is reffed, not needed)	OK	clean			noyes	yes although listed as Luangnamtha in ref
Luang Prabang Province	yes	there is 5x expansion	~~administritive division, and end of Geography, and intro are uncited~~YES	OK	clean			noyes	yes
Oudomxay Province	yes	expansion failed went from 10231 to 11657	Administrative divisions uncited	OK	nd			no	na
Phongsaly Province	Yyes	expanded 10x	OK	OK	clean			yes	yes
Sainyabuli Province	yes	went from 3042 to 8953 chars, failed expansion	Administrative divisions uncited	OK	clean			no	na
Salavan Province	Yyes	expanded over 20x	OK	OK	clean			yes	yes
Savannakhet Province	Yyes	expanded over 5x	~~Administrative divisions uncited~~yes	OK	clean			noyes	yes
Sekong Province	yes	failed expansion went from 8948 to 11281 chars	intro and Administrative divisions uncited	OK	nd			no	na
Xiangkhouang Province	yes	failed: only expanded from 7057 to 9362	OK	OK	nd			yes	yes
Vientiane Province	Yyes	only expanded from 11865 to 15019 because people worked on article as well as sandbox, otherwise we have to extend time to 29/Nov	OK	OK	clean			noyes	yes
Vientiane Prefecture	Yyes	expanded over 5 times	OK	OK	clean			yes	yes