Template:Did you know nominations/Wa alaykumu s-salam

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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Referencing

Wa alaykumu s-salam

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Wa alaykumu s-salam is a Muslim greeting in response to As-salamu alaykum, often considered the equivalent to "hello" or "good day" in English?

• Reviewed: Sardar Ayaz Sadiq

Created/expanded by Faizan (talk). Self nominated at 06:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC).

• Note The article needs expansion, development is under progress, and shall be completed within few days. Faizan 12:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Expansion has not been completed in an acceptable time frame. An article can't just be nominated and held here for a long time to do the expansion after the 5 day deadline. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keeping this open for now. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My regrets. I had migrated from the country. And I had no intermittent supply of internet. You will see progress shortly. Faizan 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Faizan 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• It has been another week, there has only been one edit, and the article is only up to 1150 prose characters, plus it has acquired a bare ref. It should have been ready long before now. If the editor had been away from Wikipedia I might be inclined to give more time, but over 1000 edits have been made on Wikipedia since the "doing" template was placed. Closing the nomination for failing to meet minimum length requirements despite a generously long extension to expand it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My regrets. The article is good now, the prose characters are also more than the required ones. I don't know why DYKcheck gives them as 1150. The highlighted text in yellowe is only 1150, whereas the section below is not counted by the DYKcheck script. I have difficulty in its more expansion, as there are no easy sources for this single greeting of 'Wa alaykumu s-salam'. Faizan 08:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tables and lists do not count for DYK, so the list of Islamic rulings are not included in the eligible total. If there are not additional sources for more material—even two of the three listed rulings are unsourced—then perhaps it just can't be expanded to be big enough, and will remain too short. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but without including the tables and lists, the length may suffice. I will get a finishing touch to the references and other concerns tomorrow. Faizan 16:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 Issues with lengh and references seem to be resolved with the recent improvements. Faizan 21:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• DYKcheck gives the current size of the article as 1461 prose characters, still insufficient to satisfy DYK length requirements, though far closer than earlier efforts. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This symbol was a bit extra. Anyway, the greeting Wa alaykumu s-salam is a response to the standard greeting of As-salamu alaykum. Therefore, there is not much content there about the response.i.e Wa alaykumu s-salam. I don;t know why DYK check does not include the whole of the characters in the article. 1461 prose characters are just the 80% of the total length, excluding table, templates, etc. I am done with references, but will try to get more substance related to further expansion. Faizan 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

✓ Thank God now DYK check approves the article's length to be above even 2075 characters (353 words). There are no copyvio issues too. Sufficient references too. Good to go? I am looking for more areas which can be improved. But overall, it should go ahead. Faizan 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Full review needed now that article is long enough. However, the fifth reference is a bare url, and must be fixed before this can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The bare URL is fixed, but I shall be grateful if you review other issues too. Faizan 07:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not able to review it myself; the icon is there to attract a reviewer to do that task. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• WikiHow, Muslim Tents, and Inter-Islam are not reliable sources. The tenth reference does not exist. I think that this should be rejected due to there still being significant problems. SL93 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)