Template:Did you know nominations/Blaufränkisch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Blaufränkisch[edit]

Blaufränkisch grapes growing in the Burgenland region of Austria

  • ... that Blaufränkisch (pictured) is known as Lemberger in Washington but winemakers there are having a difficult time marketing the wine because of consumers associating it with a smelly cheese?

5x expanded by Agne27 (talk). Self nom at 20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg The DYK check states that the article has not been expanded 5x within the past 10 days. Could you add to it? NinaGreen (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The article was 3312 B (521 words) "readable prose size" on Dec 27th, 2012 prior to me starting my expansion on Jan 18th. 3312 x 5 = 16,560. When I finished the article yesterday and nominated it was 17 kB (2674 words) "readable prose size" so I've cleared the 5x expansion rate with some bytes to spare. AgneCheese/Wine 03:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Re the DYK check, these are the results I get:
Prose size (text only): 17297 characters (2673 words) "readable prose size", Article created by 129.130.245.161 on September 3, 2004, Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 80 edits ago on August 5, 2011'
I'm confused. Perhaps an experienced DYK editor could help out here, and explain why the check results differ from the data given by the article's nominator.
References #8 and #16 don't work, and need to be fixed, and reference #1 is a babelfish-like translation which perhaps doesn't add anything. Otherwise, the article, references and hook check out, with the proviso that the principal source is offline, as mentioned by the article's nominator. I've done some minor copy-editing to correct a few wording errors. NinaGreen (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nina, DYKcheck is a program and thus very inflexible; sometimes requires too high an expansion because it can't judge the circumstances of the earlier high point that it's using as a base: was it a bad addition that was quickly reverted, or reverted later for a very good reason? Also, has the article been steady for a while at a lower number of prose characters? If steady, that's probably the pre-expansion number you should use and do the 5x calculation yourself. It looks to me like the article has been in the 3291 to 3421 prose character range since mid-September 2012, the higher of which was still in place when expansion began in January, and what Agne27 is using as her guide. Prior to that, there were a series of edits by an IP in August 2011 that ended with a total of 3587 (there was a peak of 3654 during the edits, which I don't believe should count regardless), but which included some text that was later pulled out by Agne27 as being too promotional the following year. If you go by 3421, the top pre-expansion size going back four months, then 17105 is the expansion number, which has been more than met. If 3587 from August 7, 2011, then 17935 would be the goal, requiring another 638 prose characters. 3654 simply can't be justified as a base, even if DYKcheck is using it (the August 5 number). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the explanation, BlueMoonset. For future reference, could I ask how the numbers 3291 and 3421 are arrived at? To get those numbers, does one have to copy and paste the text from earlier versions of the article into a word counter, and then delete the features DYK doesn't count? As for the current DYK nomination, I think it's reasonable to accept Agne27's count, and once the reference links which don't work are fixed, the article should be good to go. NinaGreen (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
As a longtime DYK user, I've found a lot of bugs in how DYKcheck comes up with its numbers so I just go the easier route of just going to the article's history and looking at the pre-expansion version and clicking the "page size" link on the left side bar and going from those numbers. As for the dead links, they were from previous users and all the content they referenced was already covered by other refs so I just removed the dead links and added the extra footnotes from the other sources. As for ref 1, I think you were looking at it before Wein-plus updated their urls for the English-language version. It should be fine now. AgneCheese/Wine 06:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for the explanation. I don't seem to have that "page size" link, perhaps because I'm using the basic 'skin'. I'll have to look into that. The Wein-plus English translation was still babelfish-like when I clicked on it today. It begins 'Even Emperor Charlemagne (742-814) is the red variety have valued and encouraged'. But readers can cope with that. Article is good to go! NinaGreen (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No copy and paste needed. What I'll do is go in History to any old version I want to check, click on it to bring up the article as it was then, and run DYKcheck on that version. All I use from the results is the prose character size: that way I'm comparing apples to apples when it comes to the size of that version vs. the size of the current version. If I see that the yellow highlighted text counted seems to be counting something it isn't, I'll do extra calculations, but it's generally pretty good about what to count in any page version. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. I tried it and it works perfectly. NinaGreen (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)