Template:Did you know nominations/List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle
The following is an archived discussion of List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC).
Length
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
|
List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle
( )
- Back to T:TDYK
- Article history
- ... that Chris Gayle (pictured) is one of four batsmen to score two triple centuries in Tests, one of six players to score 150 or more runs three times in ODIs, and one of nine players to score a century in T20I?
Created/expanded by Sahara4u (talk). Self nominated at 00:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
There are a number of problems here. The first is length. This is evidently a five-fold expansion. According to my calculations, the content on 27 Feb was 399 characters, while now it is 2104. That would be OK, except that the nominator had previously pruned the article - the length on 10 Feb was 2996. I really can't see how this could count. There's no doubt the article has been improved, but it's not really an expansion. There are also some problems with grammar in the hook, and the hook is too long. StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- ALT ... that Chris Gayle (pictured) is one of four batsmen to score two triple centuries in Test cricket?
- Made slight changes to the main hook. The text I removed on 9 Feb was (totally or partially) unrelated to the list, I think. Zia Khan 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know the main hook is too long but still interesting! Zia Khan 04:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's a better hook, but it should be "one of four" rather than "one of the four". Anyway, I think I would like another opinion on whether the expansion counts. StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- A4 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines says "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was..." StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Yes, I knew that but in last 5 days, I guess. Zia Khan 05:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Supplementary article length rule A4 states that "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion". So IMO, this article becomes ineligible. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to read G2. It's not like you remove some stuff—even though it might have very little relevance—and expand the article five fold from that stage and take it to DYK. The idea is the article must be nominated with in five days after creation/expansion. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Yes, I knew that but in last 5 days, I guess. Zia Khan 05:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know the main hook is too long but still interesting! Zia Khan 04:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
As pointed out above, per WP:DYKSG#A4, the previous size of the article at over 3000 prose characters is the base from which the expansion is counted. The author cut the article to the bone on February 9 and started the subsequent expansion on March 2, but the resulting 2011 character article is actually a contraction from its original size. It's a good list article, but the DYK-mandated expansion (which would have to be to over 15000 prose characters) has not taken place. It is simply not eligible under DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Technically I think this is correct, but ethically it's poor. The article had a bunch of irrelevant and unreferenced information in it, and the good faith attempt to revive it to a suitable article quality has produced a nice piece of work. Applying the DYK rules in such a fashion is "correct" but terribly demoralising and sad for an editor who actually has made a big improvement to the article. But as they say, rules is rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
