Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/2020 European Masters (2)

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Yoninah (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

2020 European Masters (2)

(
)

Expanded by Lee Vilenski (talk). Self-nominated at 15:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

  • I'm afraid I will have to decline this article as it's currently not eligible for DYK. Specifically: this article does not pass Criteria #1 New. I thought you made an error with saying you created this article, as that's not the case. As it's also not a GA, I checked if this article was a 5x expansion. However, this article is well short of the 5x number. Before you expanded it, the article's prose size was at 1517 bytes on September 25th. With your last edit today on the 26th, it grew to 4675 bytes. This is short of 5x as 1517 X 5 = 7585. Currently, this is just over a 3x expansion even with the last edit made by another user that brought it to 4674 bytes. You're currently almost 3,000 bytes short (2,910 bytes of prose). If this article was short a little bit, I'd be willing to keep it open to let you add the last bit. However, this is a long way from reaching the 5x threshold. Therefore, I'll have to fail this article in this current revision. If this article was made into a GA then nominated, it'd have a better chance of passing DYK. I hope you understand my reasoning for failing this article. Thank you for submitting this article to DYK! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333 This just needs to be an expansion of 5x within the last 7 days though. Not sure why we would use the one on the 23rd - we have an edition from 20th which has 930 characters (152 words), which today's version is a 5x expansion. I didn't think it had to be just me making the expansions... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Based on this RFC, I'm pretty sure the 5x expansion applies only to the nominator, not anyone else. Specifically "the day before the expander began substantive work on it". Therefore, the target number would be 5x times the last day's edit before you expanded it. The last edit before yours was on the 25th where it was at 1517 bytes. You started expanding it on the 26th. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh MrLinkinPark333 - I hadn't seen the RfC, but what exactly does "the day before" mean in this context? In my timezone, the day before would be this edit, so it would now meet the 5x expansion criteria?
It does feel a bit odd, because I could just claim another user as a co-nominator and have no issues? I thought the point of DYK was for articles improved significantly, not that specific editors attempts at promotion. Not that it matters, as the event ends this evening, and I'll be expanding it further once it's over irregardless but I suggest this needs a check to make sure this is the correct interpretation of this rule. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: I don't mind a second review by another editor to help figure this out. I think "the day before" is referring to the last edit from the day prior to your expansion. The last edit before yours was at 18:04, September 25, 2020‎ (my time UTC-4), making it 23:04 for you still on September 25. Meaning that any edits from September 26th onwards would be in the 7 day window for you. Your first edit was 07:45, September 26, 2020‎ (my time UTC-4), which this would have been September 26th 12:45. Even with the time zone difference, only your edits from September 26th onwards would count as the substantial expander. With your edits today, you're short still of the 5x expansion (6302 bytes in comparison to 7585). For the next reviewer: Could someone help explain the RFC change in terms of "the day before the expander began substantive work on it" part? How would this apply to this nomination? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I'd still like it clarified, it's worth noting MrLinkinPark333 that the article is now above the 7585 character limit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, it was precisely for situations like this that the RfC's original close was modified, which you don't seem to have noticed; you can see the final version at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#RfC on the Fivefold expansion rule. There was further discussion the following month: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#Further discussion/Fivefold expansion definition. Unfortunately, it didn't come to a final wording, but the clear intent was to have situations where the nominator was not the first person starting the expansion be counted from the very beginning of the expansion (but not exceeding seven days), and that should be the standard applied for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I did not see that link as that revision from July 6th is linked at WP:DYKRULES next to the word Fivefold. Since that's not the latest revision, the link you provided from July 10th should be that included instead in DYK Rules. Also, I believe there should be clarification to include that the nominator of the DYK does not have to be the only person who expanded the article within 7 days to qualify for a 5x expansion. Therefore, other users like me would not be confused. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Since the issue of fivefold expansion has been addressed per above, I'll resume this review:
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Bit of close paraphrasing/copying. I think "while Michael White came into contact with Wells" would need a slight reword to pass limited wording. My main issue is that "offered any person returning it a new cue made as a reward" looks similar to the Twitter source and would need rewording. For neutrality, I suggest dropping "however" from "Hill, however, won the next two frames" and "However, Davis' cue was returned before the end of the tournament". Rest of the article sounds fine with Words to watch as part of Neutrality. I think if these two issues are corrected, then this can be passed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The changes have been made. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Almost there. The only thing left is a rewording of "offered any person returning it a new cue made as a reward" per above. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: OK. I see you reworded the cue reward sentence. You're all set. Thanks for working on this despite the mutual 5x expansion confusion. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but while both sources say it was stolen, the article says it went missing. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Restoring tick per MrLinkinPark333's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/2020_European_Masters_(2)&oldid=982210985"