- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PumpkinSky talk 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Shock diamond edit
- ... that while normally associated with rockets and jet engines, shock diamonds (pictured) can also be produced by artillery, volcanoes, and quasars?
- ALT1:... that while shock diamonds (pictured) bear no relation to the mineral diamond, they can be produced by volcanoes?
- Reviewed: Pulangi IV Hydroelectric Power Plant
- Comment: I prefer the main hook.
5x expanded by Chris857 (talk). Self nom at 02:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Date, sourcing, and hook all check out. No problems with copying or close paraphrasing (the displayed approximation equation is copied from the source but that is unavoidable and unproblematic). I prefer the main hook, too — it's more informative. However, I count the new text length as approximately 3792 characters (not counting figure captions, equations, section titles, footnote marks, etc) and the old text length in this version (prior to the removal of a sentence) as 841 characters. So the expansion factor 3792/841 is around 4.5, not quite enough. Maybe you can expand it a little more to get it above threshold? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was counting from the version with the last sentence removed, which makes the expansion 5.2. I'll see if I can expand on what is written. Chris857 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just added a section, hopefully this is now sufficient by your count. Chris857 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good to go now. Strictly speaking the expansion is supposed to occur within a shorter window but it would be unfair to disqualify you for that, because the slow DYK review process meant that you didn't even find out about the problem for many days.—David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
