- 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 SL93 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
NZS 3604
... that technical standard NZS 3604 is used to design and construct 93 per cent of New Zealand's light timber-framed buildings?"Today [NZS 3604] is used in the construction of an estimated 93 per cent of New Zealand’s light timber-framed buildings." Using NZS 3604 Timber-framed buildings
Created by Lcmortensen (talk). Self-nominated at 08:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
- Reviewing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Expansion seems fine, no direct copyvio. QPQ done, and seems pretty hooky to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reviewing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
(Ran into an edit conflict, so this DYKN got reviewed twice—but I'll just keep my review here anyway.) Article was moved to mainspace the same day it was nominated. It's long enough, and Earwig detected no copyvio. Reliable sources and inline citations are used. QPQ done. I doubted the notability of the article at first, but from a quick look around WP, it seems like the notability criteria for building standards are fuzzy—a conversation for another time.
- WP:MOS suggests that using "93 per cent" instead of "93%" or "ninety-three per cent" is OK. But to more accurately represent the source, I'm proposing ALT1: ... that technical standard NZS 3604 is used to design and construct about 93 per cent of New Zealand's light timber-framed buildings?
- @Lcmortensen: Is ALT1 OK with you? —Cstickel(byu) (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- ALT1 is OK with me. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 20:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful to point out that the only difference between the original hook and ALT1 is the insertion of "about" before "93 per cent". (I've struck the original hook.) Since I don't see that Cstickel(byu) had any other issues with the nomination aside from the hook's assertion of 93% without qualification, Lee Vilenski, could you please confirm whether the ALT1 hook is valid with the new qualification and if so add another tick below? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- , sure. I had forgotten about MOS:% Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful to point out that the only difference between the original hook and ALT1 is the insertion of "about" before "93 per cent". (I've struck the original hook.) Since I don't see that Cstickel(byu) had any other issues with the nomination aside from the hook's assertion of 93% without qualification, Lee Vilenski, could you please confirm whether the ALT1 hook is valid with the new qualification and if so add another tick below? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- ALT1 is OK with me. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 20:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
