Template:Did you know nominations/2009–10 Logan Cup
- 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 Orlady (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
2009–10 Logan Cup edit
- ... that the start of the 2009–10 Logan Cup was delayed because not all the cricket teams involved had finished signing players?
Comment: QPQ review to follow.- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anarchism and Occupy Wall Street. Harrias talk 21:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Harrias (talk). Self nom at 12:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Am currently reviewing this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expanded over the period 29-30 March 2012 from 297 characters of prose to 1664 characters of prose. Meets x5 expansion criterion. 08:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Also, it is long enough (over 1500 characters of prose) and was expanded within the period five days before the nomination. The article is sourced to reliable sources. My one concern about the sourcing is that it is all from a single site. That is OK here (as ESPNcricinfo is reliable for cricket information), but for future editing I would suggest trying to find other sources in addition to that one if possible. I'm satisfied that the article gives due weight to different aspects of the topic. I was only able to check one of the ESPNcricinfo reports, but couldn't see any copyright issues there. The hook is less than 200 characters and is correctly formatted. The hook is not that interesting, but is cited in the article. QPQ criterion met. One slight issue with the prose, but will fix that myself. Need to do one more source check, but otherwise this looks good to go. 07:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Have now checked hook citation, and that is fine, so
. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expanded over the period 29-30 March 2012 from 297 characters of prose to 1664 characters of prose. Meets x5 expansion criterion. 08:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Also, it is long enough (over 1500 characters of prose) and was expanded within the period five days before the nomination. The article is sourced to reliable sources. My one concern about the sourcing is that it is all from a single site. That is OK here (as ESPNcricinfo is reliable for cricket information), but for future editing I would suggest trying to find other sources in addition to that one if possible. I'm satisfied that the article gives due weight to different aspects of the topic. I was only able to check one of the ESPNcricinfo reports, but couldn't see any copyright issues there. The hook is less than 200 characters and is correctly formatted. The hook is not that interesting, but is cited in the article. QPQ criterion met. One slight issue with the prose, but will fix that myself. Need to do one more source check, but otherwise this looks good to go. 07:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Have now checked hook citation, and that is fine, so
- Am currently reviewing this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
