Template:Did you know nominations/Ismail Amat
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 12:50, 9 November 2018 by imported>Mhhossein (I'll resume the review process)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ismail Amat
- ... that Ismail Amat was one of the highest-ranking Uyghur politicians of China? Source: Song 2014
5x expanded by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 23:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC).
Before making deeper reviews, the article is not five folded (it was 1862 characters before the expansion began and just 4556 characters after the last edit). Moreover, the article had appeared in the ITN in the recent death row. (pinging BlueMoonset to see if my rejection is right). --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Template:Re You're mistaken. The pre-expansion version had 638 characters, not 1862, because templates, categories, etc. do not count, only prose characters do. And appearance in "recent deaths" does not disqualify an article for DYK, only bolded appearances do. Please read rule 1D: "Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible." -Zanhe (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Zanhe, Mhhossein, this is a very odd one, because apparently DYKcheck is adding a huge number of prose characters due entirely to the "lang-ug" template. When that template is removed from the article (tested in Preview without changing the article), the total character count drops from 4556 characters to 3385 characters. When I do the same to the September 3, 2018 version of the article, which is the one prior to the expansion (Mhhossein, you should use the edit prior to the date the expansion started for the "before" count, regardless of who made the first edit on the expansion date), the total character count drops from 1843 to 657. This just makes it as a 5x expansion, because 5 x 657 is 3285, which is more than covered by the 3385 in the article. I'm not sure whether the language equivalents in those initial parenthesis should count as prose or not, but I don't think we should sweat it under the circumstances. I should add that Zanhe is correct, in that a non-bold appearance in recent deaths at ITN does not disqualify an article for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC) (updated at 05:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC) to add "more than covered" in clarifying my prior statement)
- Template:Re As you see the main problem stems from the "lang-ug" template and hence I was not mistakenly counting templates, categories, etc. I knew that only readable prose had to be considered, that's what the DYK check tool do normally. Anyway, thanks to BlueMoonset's clarifying comment, I'll resume the review process. --Mhhossein talk 12:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)