- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Lasse Viren
edit
- ... that in the 1972 Summer Olympics, Finnish Lasse Viren (pictured) won the final of the 10,000 meters setting a world record, despite being dropped during the race?
- Reviewed: Ottoz family, Gelindo Bordin, Tatyana McFadden
Created/expanded by Kasper2006 (talk). Self nom at 16:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by this one. The article has been around since 2004, it hasn't been expanded recently at all, and you have never edited it. What am I missing? Or have you never had a look at the eligibility rules? Schwede66 07:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Yes, I read the rules, but the main article does not seem so bad (but now I try to do an update), therefore the hook seemed interesting.. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of DYK is to feature new content. Articles either have to have been created within the last five days, or the prose of an existing article been expanded by a factor of five. Before you started, the article had 9,377 B of prose. It currently has 9,296 B (i.e. it's actually slightly shorter, but undoubtedly somewhat better). You are aiming for 46,900 B of prose. That is a very serious undertaking, and all to be accomplished within five days. Good luck.
- Also, what is requested from you under 'Reviewed' is where you have reviewed somebody else's DYK nomination (please link to the review template, and not simply the article). What you have listed there are your own DYK nominations. The requirement for review gets triggered once you have five successful DYKs and given that you appear to be struggling with the rules somewhat, as evidenced by all of your nominations having some kind of trouble, I suggest that you get a better grip onto the rules first before you start reviewing other editor's work. When you do a review, please state that you are new to reviewing and that one of the old-timers please give a second opinion.
- And if those comments leave you puzzled as to why your one successful DYK so far was approved, well, it was never eligible in the first place. Schwede66 18:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Yes, I read the rules, but the main article does not seem so bad (but now I try to do an update), therefore the hook seemed interesting.. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
