Template:Did you know nominations/Kathryn J. Whitmire
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kathryn J. Whitmire
[edit]- ... that the 1981 election of Kathryn J. Whitmire as mayor heralded a major change in the city politics of Houston, Texas?
- Reviewed: Abandoned mine drainage
2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Bruin2 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC).
- To be eligible for the 2x BLP exception, an article must have no sources of any kind prior to expansion. This had inline references and an external link, so it is not eligible for that exception. A regular 5x expansion is required. Seven days before nomination, it was 2,856 prose characters, so a 5x times expansion would require 14,280. If whoever reviews this wants to be generous, allowing a late nomination (a day and a half) and taking the pre-expansion version to be just before the nominator started working on it, it was 2,201 characters, so 5x would be 11,005. It's currently 10,328 prose characters. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Mandararx, Thanks for your speedy reply. Before I started the main expansion, I had run the character count tool, which showed 2, 217 characters. I checked again on the morning of December 16, and got a count of 10, 469 characters, indicating a 4.72 expansion. But at 7:15 PM PDT, I rechecked after another update and counted 11,620 characters, an expansion ratio of 5.24. Ordinarily, I wouldn't quibble over such relatively small deviations, but since this issue could invalidate the whole DYK effort, I believe it is premature to declare the DYK void on this item alone. Moreover, I'm sure I could find enough material to bring the character count over the 5.0 expansion in the next day or so, if necessary. Does that sound satisfactory? Bruin2 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was certainly never my intention to "declare the DYK void". I'm sure that most reviewers would be willing to overlook the extra day and a half, so if you can add enough material for about 700 more prose characters, that would probably be fine. The difference in our numbers is that I use DYKcheck, which is considered the "standard" prose counter for DYK purposes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mandarax. I am also using the standard prose counter. My count this morning at 0830 PST is 17853 characters, which is well above the minimum target. Bruin2 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's currently 11,427 prose characters, which would be sufficient for reviewers willing to forgive the slightly late nomination. You are definitely not using the "standard" prose counter for DYK purposes. I suspect you're using the "Character count" link in the DYK toolbox. Its presence there may make it seem as though it's "official", but it absolutely is not; it was put there by someone without consensus. It's a very bad tool for DYK, because it counts everything, without excluding items which are not allowed as DYK prose. It's the user's responsibility to only enter text which should be counted. DYKcheck automatically counts only what should be counted, and if you're going to be doing any DYKs, I strongly recommend that you install it.
MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's currently 11,427 prose characters, which would be sufficient for reviewers willing to forgive the slightly late nomination. You are definitely not using the "standard" prose counter for DYK purposes. I suspect you're using the "Character count" link in the DYK toolbox. Its presence there may make it seem as though it's "official", but it absolutely is not; it was put there by someone without consensus. It's a very bad tool for DYK, because it counts everything, without excluding items which are not allowed as DYK prose. It's the user's responsibility to only enter text which should be counted. DYKcheck automatically counts only what should be counted, and if you're going to be doing any DYKs, I strongly recommend that you install it.
- Thanks, Mandarax. I am also using the standard prose counter. My count this morning at 0830 PST is 17853 characters, which is well above the minimum target. Bruin2 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was certainly never my intention to "declare the DYK void". I'm sure that most reviewers would be willing to overlook the extra day and a half, so if you can add enough material for about 700 more prose characters, that would probably be fine. The difference in our numbers is that I use DYKcheck, which is considered the "standard" prose counter for DYK purposes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Mandararx, Thanks for your speedy reply. Before I started the main expansion, I had run the character count tool, which showed 2, 217 characters. I checked again on the morning of December 16, and got a count of 10, 469 characters, indicating a 4.72 expansion. But at 7:15 PM PDT, I rechecked after another update and counted 11,620 characters, an expansion ratio of 5.24. Ordinarily, I wouldn't quibble over such relatively small deviations, but since this issue could invalidate the whole DYK effort, I believe it is premature to declare the DYK void on this item alone. Moreover, I'm sure I could find enough material to bring the character count over the 5.0 expansion in the next day or so, if necessary. Does that sound satisfactory? Bruin2 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
