Template:Did you know nominations/Myth of Superabundance
The following is an archived discussion of Myth of Superabundance's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: rejected by OCNative (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
This article actually shrunk before the nomination, so it's not a 5x expansion.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Myth of superabundance
edit- ... that the largest wildlife species known to man, the Passenger Pigeon, became extinct in under a century and was just one of the many victims of the myth of superabundance?
Created by Erica1990 (talk). Self nominated at 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC).
Sorry, but this article was created on 4 March - at the end of that day it was 10168 characters; on 8 March it was 7120 characters; at the moment on 15 March it is 8879 characters. I can't see how it can match the DYK rules under expansion criteria and it's also nominated outside the five day time bracket, so would be disqualified on 'newness'. Other reviewers may feel I'm taking too strict a view on this? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, this article was nominated four days late. Though for a completely new user, we are allowed to give some slack per WP:DYKSG#D9. Need a new reviewer for this nomination. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand Mentoz86's reasoning. The article was created on March 4 and nominated 11 days later. That is far more than a "4-day" extension. (The article was not expanded 5x in 9 days, either.) There are other problems with the nomination. The page creator continuously credits the myth of superabundance for various phenomena without providing a source, making it look like OR. Since all the references are offline, I am unable to check whether close paraphrasing is in order. And the hook fact itself has no citation in the text. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
