Template:Did you know nominations/Women's shelter
- 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) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Women's shelter
[edit]- ... that the first Women's shelters in the United States were established by grassroots volunteers in the 1970s?
- ALT1:Did you know...that one of the early versions of a Women's shelter was a type of Buddhist temple called a kakekomi dera, translated a shelter for women.
5x expanded by Slklose (talk). Self-nominated at 20:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC).
A great article for a 5X expansion. Hook citability and interest pass. Copyvio looks good. No image. Length is clean. GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Poor review. The hook wasn't properly formatted and was a redirect - article title not bolded and had the words "did you know" at the start. Now fixed. QPQ not done. Hook fact was cited to an offline source and should have been an AGF tick. Much more significantly, this is nowhere near a 5x expansion. The length at 27 April was 5,527 characters and the length at 12 May was 8,103 characters, an expansion of less than 1.5x. Fails several criteria and under no cirsumstances is this ready for DYK. Bcp67 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)- I do not see the issue with my citation. It is correctly cited in the Women's Shelter article which is linked. How would you propose I cite the outside source? You are also only calculating my addition using the original characters versus ending characters. If you include the amount of characters I deleted, and the fact that I added over 9,000 characters, I should meet the requirements.Also, I am still adding to the article this week. Slklose (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
No issue with the citation itself - it's properly cited to an offline source, my problem was with the reviewer who should have given it the AGF tick rather than the green one. The only way of calculating expansion is to compare the article before expansion with the version after, and the rule is "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." This isn't a fivefold expansion, and if it's still being worked on it might have been better to wait to nominate it. However, the length is still my main objection, but I'd be fine with a more experienced reviewer giving their opinion. QPQ still needs doing. Bcp67 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)- The article was a mess before, I gave credit from the point of deletion of bad content. If we had an article that was 5,000 characters worth of the letter "Z" and someone improved it with actual content, we would not logically demand it be increased to 25,000 characters. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Now, as for your "a more experienced reviewer" comment - I am objectively said "more experienced reviewer" based on my 83 DYK reviews versus your 13, therefore your note that you will be fine with the opinion of "a more experienced reviewer" than yourself is graciously accepted and acted upon and this review of Slklose's fine article re-passed. LavaBaron (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see the issue with my citation. It is correctly cited in the Women's Shelter article which is linked. How would you propose I cite the outside source? You are also only calculating my addition using the original characters versus ending characters. If you include the amount of characters I deleted, and the fact that I added over 9,000 characters, I should meet the requirements.Also, I am still adding to the article this week. Slklose (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:LavaBaron, apologies for any offence inadvertently caused - yes indeed, I withdraw all my objections above, happy to see this article linked from the main page. I need to keep away from DYK now as some of my recent reviews have caused issues which I didn't intend. Bcp67 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
