Template:Did you know nominations/South Hams District Council
- 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 4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
South Hams District Council edit
- ... that South Hams District Council, in Devon, England, offers seagull-proof refuse sacks to reduce waste and injuries caused by the birds?
Moved to mainspace by Jolly Janner (talk). Self-nominated at 21:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC).
Article creation date (when moved to user space) okay with respect to DYK filing date. Article length okay at 2225 bytes readable prose size. Neutrality okay, sourcing a bit reliant upon subject itself but okay, I didn't spot any copyvio concerns. QPQ done showing effort.
- Hook length is okay, hook source is online, hook interest level is very good given the otherwise dry nature of the article.
- Regarding the article itself, there are some language and formatting issues. "(Local Government Act 1972)" in parentheses is a bit odd; why not say "... due to the Local Government Act 1972" or something like that. "As of the latest election" is likely to get out of date at some point; why not just say "As of the 7 May 2015 election ..." There is a missing closing parenthesis for "(excluding a brief period ..." Two instances of "(Ranked ..." should have a lower-case 'r'. The usage "South Hams DC" starts occurring late in the article; why not just say "the council" or "the district council" as was done earlier in the article. The retrieval date of "2009-11-20" should be in dmy format like the others. These should be corrected before it goes up on the main page. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've copy edited the article as such, although I do find this request a little bizarre for the DYK standard. Jolly Ω Janner 01:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There are some writers who, always wanting what they put out to be as good as possible, are always grateful when people review their work, no matter what the context. I'm like that, but not everyone in WP is the same way, and I should be more mindful of that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
