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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by
Cielquiparle (
talk) 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd prefer to give the individual credit by name in the hook. Also, the sources cited spell "outlook" as one word rather than hyphenated; there's an image in the article of a hyphenated "out-look" but that's over a line break. So I would recommend
Full review needed.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 15:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Claim spot, review to come tonight.@
FuzzyMagma: Made copyedits as I read. ALT1 is suitable for the main page (AGF on refs behind paywall). Article is neutral and well cited, QPQ there. However, the article is not technically new enough by DYK criteria - most (I'd guess at least 60%) of the text appears in the
first version of
Archie Mafeje when it was moved to mainspace on 30 December 2022, and
Mafeje affair was split off and nominated on 9 February 2023. It's a shame because this is a very good hook, and the article meets all other criteria. Either or , will leave to others' eyes. @
Metropolitan90,
BlueMoonset, and
Theleekycauldron: could I ping you for your thoughts?
Hameltion (
talk |
contribs) 02:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Regrettably, although the article seems to be new, the bulk of its text, according to reviewer
Hamilton, existed in an article as of the end of December. The article would need to be to expanded to five times the size of that copied text according to
WP:DYKSG#A5: If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. That unfortunately won't be possible. At this point, the article's sole chance for DYK that I can see is to become a Good Article and be nominated again within seven days of that happening. The expansion requirements are irrelevant to GAs. The GA criteria are
here; information about the GA nomination process is
here.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 06:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
You are correct about the article. Sorry I did not read the rules before putting the article forward. Thanks @
BlueMoonset: and @
Hameltion: for reviewing the article and especially Hameltion for the extensive copy editing. Regrettably I lost my patience last time when the
DYK nomination was turned to a GA review. I should have defended my corner better. Anyway, I will comeback after I bring the article to GA.
FuzzyMagma (
talk) 06:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)