Template:Did you know nominations/Constitution of Mississippi

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Constitution of Mississippi[edit]

(

)

[[File:|120px|The front cover of the current Constitution of Mississippi. ]]

The front cover of the current Constitution of Mississippi.

... that the current Constitution of Mississippi was created in 1890 to prevent African Americans from voting?

ALT1:... that the current Constitution of Mississippi was created in 1890 to stop African Americans from voting?
ALT2:... that the current Constitution of Mississippi was created in 1890 solely to take the right to vote away from African Americans?
ALT3:... that the current Constitution of Mississippi, created in 1890, was created specifically to disenfranchise the state's African American voters?
Comment: The article is a work in progress and I'm still working on improving it and adding more citations and information to it, but I found the discovery of this specific bit of information to be quite intriguing and reflective of history. I hope you will find it the same. This is my first DYK nomination. With the kindest, humblest, and best of regards, – Illegitimate Barrister 15:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Expanded by Illegitimate Barrister (talk). Self-nominated at 15:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Support. Sad but interesting fact of modern history. Prefer ALT2. Transparent 6lue (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This review needs more details, in accordance with DYK review instructions. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYK Reviewing guide.
@Illegitimate Barrister: please note that per Rule D2, each paragraph requires at least one cite for DYK. Many paragraphs lack any cite at all. Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Expansion is under 5x. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Note that all expansion has to be within 7 days. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently at 53221 prose characters according to DYKcheck. Its size prior to the edit on July 29, which is the earliest within the seven days of nomination, was 12443 prose characters. Under the 5x expansion rule, this therefore requires the article to be 62215 prose characters; at the moment it's 8994 prose characters short of 5x, even though it has been expanded by 40778. Another 8994 characters is quite a bit, but it's still allowed: we generally give the opportunity to further expand an article once we've identified in the initial review that it has fallen somewhat short, since most nominators don't have a prose counter available to them. Illegitimate Barrister, you've done a great deal of work here already; if you don't think a further expansion of almost 9000 prose characters is feasible, your other route is to prepare the article to be a Good Article and nominate it there; if approved for listing as a GA, you have a one-week window to nominate it here. Thanks for submitting to DYK, and good luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. I've added a lot of information, so I don't know if I can add 9,000 characters worth of info, but I can certainly try. – Illegitimate Barrister, 03:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister, the bulk of what you added to the article since my comment above is blockquoted material, which unfortunately do not count as prose characters. (Large chunks of quoted text do not count as expansion, since it is not original prose.) At the moment, the article is at 53720 prose characters, still 8495 characters short of the 62215 requirement. If you are going to expand the article further for the sake of DYK, you need to do it soon—you should start by the end of the month, and finish not that long after. If this isn't feasible, then you can renominate the article should it at some point be approved as a GA. Please let us know your plans. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister, your edits on September 28 added only slightly to the article's length, which is now at 53772 prose characters. It has been a week since my last post, and you still have not posted your plans here. I can give you one more week to post here; if you cannot by then commit to adding the remaining required 8443 prose characters in a reasonable period, I'm afraid we'll have to close the nomination as unsuccessful. As noted above, you'd have another opportunity for a DYK if you successfully pursue a Good Article listing. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

With great regret, because there has been no response here and only a few copyedits to the article that had a negligible affect on its size, I am closing this nomination as unsuccessful. Illegitimate Barrister, I hope you do end up nominating this as a Good Article, and that it succeeds in becoming one, at which point you can renominate it. Thank you for submitting it; please try again with another article in future, and best of luck when you do. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)