Template:Did you know nominations/Nina Wilcox Putnam

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 Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nina Wilcox Putnam

(

)

... that Nina Wilcox Putnam wrote the story that was the basis for The Mummy and drafted the first 1040 income tax form?

Reviewed: Pearsonothuria

Created/expanded by Gobonobo (talk). Self nom at 21:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

- While the hook length is proper, the article is new enough, long enough and well-referenced, it fails the two-fold/five-fold expansion criteria. In fact, the article just started off hugely and saw little expansion since then. According to me, this one is a fail. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This was newly created two days ago. Please see WP:WIADYK. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 16:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is perfectly new; you didn't see my reason. I stated that the article has not undergone a two-fold/five-fold expansion. The article size must be expanded by at least 2 times in case of a biography from its original size; that is not satisfied here. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw your reason, but I thought that you might have misinterpreted policy. The 2x/5x expansion rule is only for articles that are not new. New articles do not have to meet that criteria. From WP:WIADYK: DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been either created, expanded at least fivefold, or newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP). Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 17:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, pardon me :D. I'm new to reviewing, actually. Yes, I have clarified with another DYK reviewer and your article is eligible.

Sources are Books, which is fine. Both points are sourced properly. Article is new enough, long enough and well-referenced. Yes, good to go! ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)