Template:Did you know nominations/Great North 10K

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 Allen3 ^talk 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Great North 10K

(

)

... ~~that the Great North 10K is the biggest running event in North East England, with over 5,000 people?~~

Reviewed: Keith Car & Manufacturing Company

Created/expanded by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 17:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC).

I was going to review this nomination but discovered it had been created new on 26 May, so the nomination was not eligible in that respect; however, Matty.007 had then began expanding it on the day of the DYK nomination, 25 June. I have since undertaken some further expansion after checking with Matty and I think it now meets the x5 criteria (when the 'sponsors' list is subtracted from the 29 May version, there were only 626 characters of readable prose; the present version on 29 June is now 3390 characters, which I get as a x5.4 increase undertaken within five days).

Obviously as I have now edited the article, I cannot undertake a review of it. Matty doesn't have any DYK credits so doesn't need to do a QPQ but I have allocated a review I've undertaken above. I also suggest a 91 character ALT hook below, which is supported by ref #9 in the history section. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the participants in the 2013 Great North 10K run shared the finish line at Gateshead International Stadium with Mo Farah?

Sorry, I added the venue to the hook, which brings the character count up to 126. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd need another 4.5k characters to reach 5x, so this doesn't look like it can run (if you can add more information that would be great however). I usually don't mind giving up to ten days, but this is closer to a month so it's way too old.14:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

My arithmatic was wrong, but still not eligible. This version is 1k characters, meaning the article needs at least 5k to be eligible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The article itself has been expanded from 2,236 bytes to 12,676 bytes, which is more than the required 11180 bytes. However, this is the actual page size, as I could not see where it said that the prose size had to increase five-fold. Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The page here is a guideline, not a definitive set of rules set in stone. I feel that a 3.5 prose size expansion is sufficient, but others may disagree. Mat ty.007 16:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Matty, this is entirely my fault - I had thought the "list" of sponsors shouldn't be counted when tallying the old version of 26 May so I had subtracted 375 characters from the DYK count of 1001. I was wrong in doing this. I apologise completely for my error. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@Matty.007: The DYK rules say "The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count. Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references; it is calculated using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or a similar extension." (emphasis mine). Otherwise someone could just add 5 infoboxes and say "this was expanded 5x". You just need another 1.5k characters now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Long enough now. Needs a new review (I think we can let the age slide). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco. With the expansion undertaken, the ref for ALT1 is now ref #12 in the penultimate paragraph of the History section. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

References need some cleanup (note the big ugly (newspaper) in The Journal (newspaper), for instance). What makes greatrun.org a reliable source? Also, standardise the naming of your publishers (Bupa, Bupa Great Run, blank...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this again, Crisco. I think I've sorted the ref issues now? From what I can tell, greatrun.org is the official site as it looks as if Gateshead Council directed potential entrants to it here? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, well if that's the case we certainly can't have "is the biggest running event in North East England, with over 5,000 people" supported by Great Run. Any independent sources for that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Inserted Gateshead Council to support that part; I've left the greatrun ref in place as it supports the 5,000 participants part of the sentence. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not independent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Crisco, I'm rather working in the dark with this. I did find another couple of refs for it, which I've inserted - there is another web site I found that states it, but unbelievably from an estate agents; I haven't included that one yet though as I thought I'd wait to see what you thought. I did point out to Matty that the original hook couldn't be used as it is in actual fact the second largest behind the Great North Run, hence me changing the way the lead was worded and suggesting an ALT1 hook instead. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, for ALT1 this is good to go. You should definitely find a better source for the largest/second-largest claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco - I've struck the original hook for clarity. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)