Template:Did you know nominations/Social media addiction

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Insufficient expansion to qualify; much of the added material has been taken from pre-existing articles.

Social media addiction edit

(

)

People walking with smartphones

... that females are more likely to develop social media addiction, but males video game addiction? Source: "Hawi and colleagues, and numerous cites from this secondary source [1]

5x expanded by E.3 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC).

Reviewed: Monument to the Fighters of the Revolution

Comment:The article was expanded from a stub by using content from other pre-existing articles. That content counts towards the original prose, not the expansion. As such, the article hasn't had 5x expansion in any one week period in the last two months. This is ~~my first review~~ a review that's been withdrawn by the reviewer ( on 18 July), and a second opinion would be welcome. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 22:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: whilst there is some content from other articles during the expansion the bulk of it was new text. --[E.3][chat2][me] 09:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, a rough count before 28 June shows some 1800 characters, and the current (rough) count is a little over 11,000. How new content comes into a specific article is less important than that it's new to the article, although some may quibble over that, but it's also worth noting that in this edit, the very first addition which had some content from another article, much of the content is references and thus doesn't count toward the prose. So I don't agree that there's a problem here. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I wasn't being callous, but only trying to be ~~extremely~~ thorough as a total newb. I counted prose before expansion at ~1800, prose after addition from other articles at ~4400, and the final prose at ~12,000. Referring to the review guide that said it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a pre-existing article, I had no choice but to come to the conclusion I shared. But, when Drmies says it's just a quibble, that's good enough for me. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset asked me to check on character counts here. The original pre-expansion article, as Drmies notes, was roughly 1800 characters of readable prose. About 3800 were added from other articles - 2500 from the digital media use article, and 600-700 from each of video game addiction and internet addiction disorder articles. (note that not all of the edits were attributed - eg. this one did include copying from another article). This gives a total original prose count of 5586 characters, and DYKcheck gives the current readable prose as 9655 - not quite a 2x expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, given Nikkimaria's analysis, the article would need to be expanded to 27930 prose characters without using any additional material from other articles, which seems an awfully high ask. It might be easier to try to get this article to Good Article status, though the wait for reviews is currently many months long. In any event, unless E.3 thinks they can add another 18275 prose characters in the reasonably near future, the nomination can't meet the 5x expansion requirement. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@E.3: If you will be unable to respond by Saturday, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead is difficult and although I state in edit summaries that I took it from other pages, it's actually rewritten for this condition, I'm simply trying to reflect preexisting consensus. However if we must quibble over what exactly is new content for the DYK (I wrote them all in the other articles before bringing to here) it is definitely impossible for me to add another 18275 prose characters whilst complying with wikipedia policies and consensus, with the proposed condition as controversial as it is :) --[E.3][chat2][me]

Noted. Per the nominator's comments, it appears unlikely that the nomination can reach the expansion requirement with a reasonable timeframe. Thus, this nomination is now marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)