Template:Did you know nominations/October 2008 Central America floods

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 PFHLai (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

October 2008 Central America floods

(

)

... that flooding in October 2008 in Central America was considered the worst natural disaster since Hurricane Mitch 10 years prior?

Reviewed: Disconfirmed expectancy

5x expanded by Hurricanehink (talk). Self nominated at 04:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC).

Date (exp.), hook, neutrality, refs are fine. Expansion is somewhere between 4x and 5x, but considering the size, I am not going to go bureaucratic on this; this expansion is larger than many other stand-alone DYKs anyway. Good job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I only thought it was 5x expansion because it was 6.9 kb, and now it's 39 kb. I guess it depends on the prose size and not the overall size then? Sorry, I don't DYK too often. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here after this nomination has been reviewed, but I find the hook a bit ambiguous - "considered the worst natural disaster" - but where? Obviously not anywhere in the world, but does that comment refer to Central America in general, or a region of it or a particular country? Apologies if that sounds a bit pedantic but I think it could be more specific --Bcp67 (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Decided to take a look, and the source reads as if it refers to Central America as a whole. Would this hook be better?;

ALT1 ... that flooding in October 2008 was considered the worst natural disaster in Central America since Hurricane Mitch 10 years prior? --Bcp67 (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That would work fine, provided I get some clarification about the length (namely, what tool can I use?!). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Expansion is somewhere between 4x and 5x, but considering the size, I am not going to go bureaucratic on this
— Piotrus

Not good enough. It is a core DYK policy that the article must be 5x expanded. Article was currently at 3,667 characters; as of now 15,722. Another 2,613 characters of prose are required.--Laun chba ller 10:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a tool that shows the prose length and not just the overall length? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.--Laun chba ller 14:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw then. I'm not just going to inflate the size of the article to meet the 5x requirement. Thanks though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Perfect example of why the strict reading of expansion criteria is just an exercise in annoying bureaucracy. @

User:Hurricanehink: please accept my apologies for DYK bureaucracy, your article is very interesting and important. If you get it passed as a GA, it can be DYKed then. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it is a GA now! @User:Piotrus, is it still eligible? I had no idea GA's could be included. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

GAs are DYK eligible so long as it was passed within the last ten days.--Laun chba ller 18:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yea, it was passed on the 12th. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I see no further unaddressed moans on this page. Good to go.--Laun chba ller 15:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WHOO!!!! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)