Template:Did you know nominations/Western Australian radioactive capsule incident
- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Western Australian radioactive capsule incident
- ... that a radioactive capsule missing in Western Australia was found after a seven day search? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-01/australian-radioactive-capsule-found-in-wa-outback-rio-tinto/101917828
- ALT1: ... that the seach for a lost radioactive capsule along a 1,400-kilometre (870 mi) stretch of road in Western Australia has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack? Source: https://www.9news.com.au/national/wa-lost-radioactive-capsule-search-update-we-are-not-trying-to-find-the-small-capsule-by-eyesight/ec05960c-5fd4-4ba7-9a4c-e83ec7709080 https://www.watoday.com.au/national/who-will-pay-for-wa-s-1400-kilometre-radioactive-capsule-hunt-20230201-p5ch6q.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pull-up (exercise)
- Comment: Anyone can feel free to suggest another possible hook.
Created by Compusolus (talk). Nominated by Steelkamp (talk) at 07:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Western Australian radioactive capsule incident, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Before I review, I just wanted to see if others could confirm this article's eligibility. It was created on 27 January and nominated on 3 February; i.e. nominated after 7 days but not within 7 days as per WP:DYKCRIT. I'm probably just being semantic so I'll leave a review anyway. Let's see: Article is new enough(?) and long enough. I'd recommend expanding the lead as, at present, it does not mention the resolution to the situation. The first sentence in "Timeline" will also need to be sourced before passage. QPQ is done. If passed, I'd go with ALT1, but recommend changing "searching" to "looking" so as to not repeat words. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Krisgabwoosh Yes, 3 February was the last day it could be nominated within the 7-day window. It's fine. Are you happy to approve now with a green tick? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm happy to approve it once the other issues have been addressed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Krisgabwoosh: I've added a citation for that sentence, expanded the lead and have changed alt1 as suggested. I agree that alt1 is the better hook. Steelkamp (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to go then. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Krisgabwoosh: I've added a citation for that sentence, expanded the lead and have changed alt1 as suggested. I agree that alt1 is the better hook. Steelkamp (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm happy to approve it once the other issues have been addressed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Krisgabwoosh Yes, 3 February was the last day it could be nominated within the 7-day window. It's fine. Are you happy to approve now with a green tick? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
