Template:Did you know nominations/Indian cricket team in Zimbabwe in 1992–93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Indian cricket team in Zimbabwe in 1992–93's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC).

Indian cricket team in Zimbabwe in 1992–93[edit]

5x expanded by Harrias (talk). Self nominated at 16:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Not a full review, but I note that the article has a stub tag (and it reads like a stub), and those are not permitted on DYK. And if you deduct quotations from the prose, then it's also not long enough. Schwede66 18:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I removed the stub tag and classification, they were an oversight. But there is nothing which says quotations should be deducted from the quote, only that blockquotes are not counted, meaning that it is long enough. Harrias talk 18:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png What it says about required article length is that "the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles". I have always regarded quotations to fall into that description, too, as they are hardly 'original content'. It further says that "in practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers". To me, it feels stubby, but having said that, I would prefer to leave that assessment to somebody who actually understands cricket, as that would be fairer. So I invite somebody with knowledge of cricket to have a look. But given that I've started the review, I shall state that the 5x expansion criterion has been met, hook fact AGF, there's no close paraphrasing, and it's suitably referenced. Only thing that needs a tidy up is bolding of the appropriate words of the first sentence. Schwede66 19:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I can accept your point of view. I have done some more work on the article which hopefully has addressed each of your issues about length and "stubbiness". How does it look now? Harrias talk 13:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Good to go. Schwede66 21:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)