Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Still no copyedit and no QPQ
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee edit
- ... that the the Swiss Court agreed the judicial review by the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee as resulting International Olympic Committee modified the Olympic Charter in 1980?
Created/expanded by Sdee (talk). Self-nominated at 02:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC).
- Comment only That hook is not "interesting", as it merely states the obvious. Is there nothing better? Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The page history shows that Sdee started editing the article on 10 December 2016, eight days before the nomination, but the fivefold expansion seems to have begun on 16 December 2016, so it is probably acceptable. The article is long enough, neutral, and uses inline citations. It does not seem to have copyright violations. I assume good faith for the offline The Times source. The article says that the National Flag Anthem is used because of an agreement signed in 1981, and the lyrics were modified in 1981, but the sources cited seem to say 1983. The source cited does not contain some of the dates in the list of presidents. I did some copy editing and added archive URLs to dead links, but the article needs more cleanup. I am not sure what "recolonize" means. The hook is interesting, but it is a little confusing and needs to be edited. According to the QPQ check tool, the nominator has 6 DYK credits, so QPQ is needed. This will be good to go when the QPQ is done and the article is cleaned up. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Even consider the version before 10 December the prose was about 3300 bytes, and now the prose is about 7200 bytes just twofold of the older version. I don't think it meets the expansion criteria.--113.52.109.178 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- You might be right. The version before 10 December presented the history as a list, so the tool I used didn't count the characters in the history section. Thanks for noticing that. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Lists are not counted as prose, so the pre-expansion version on November 22, 2016 was 487 characters. This is indeed a 5x expansion, and the review should continue. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- It appears that the list was converted to prose. Gulumeemee (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Some items were removed, and some content was added. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It has been over two months, and the nominator has still not provided a QPQ. Allowing seven days for the required QPQ to be submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- QPQ was never supplied, and nominator has not edited Wikipedia since the end of January. Marking for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)