Template:Did you know nominations/Pan Celtic Festival
- 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 97198 (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pan Celtic Festival edit
- ... that the 2001 Pan Celtic Festival was cancelled due to the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak?
- ALT1:... that the 2001 Pan Celtic Festival was cancelled due to the United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak?
- Reviewed: Mason Springthorpe
5x expanded by Wesley Mouse (talk). Self-nominated at 01:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC).
I de-italicized the link to the outbreak article. Also, the article has been expanded but not in a fivefold. Previous revision was 1,009 bytes/characters. Current revision is 2,761 B. A few more sections can help expansion become a fivefold. --George Ho (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- @George Ho: You've confused me now. Where have you got 2,761 bytes? The revision history shows 10,735 bytes. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- The 10,000+ bytes thing includes reference codes, headings, tables, lists, and infobox. WP:DYK rules count only non-list prose. Still confused? George Ho (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- @George Ho:. I've expanded even further now, I think that is five-fold. Original version before my major expansion was at 1,009 - five-fold would make a target of 5,045 bytes. Its current status is 6,069 bytes. However, the DYK check tool still says it hasn't expanded five-fol. Is there a glitch with that tool lately? Make that 6,260 bytes. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- The 10,000+ bytes thing includes reference codes, headings, tables, lists, and infobox. WP:DYK rules count only non-list prose. Still confused? George Ho (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Impressive, but I hope the article is not bloated with unnecessary information. Of course, someone else might disagree. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Article looks good to me; if anything it could bear to include a lot more information in my opinion, although it could probably do without the infoboxes for each country. The expansion is now 5x, the tool doesn't show that as it was 1,765 bytes until some uncited information was removed in July 2014. However, I'm happy that the current expansion is still fine, and not based on that content. The hook fact is appropriately cited inline, and checks reveal no significant copyvio or close para-phrasing. Good to go. Harrias talk 10:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
