Template:Did you know nominations/Wes McCauley
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Wes McCauley
[edit]- ... that Wes McCauley has refereed the Stanley Cup Finals for the last four years? Source: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
- Reviewed: Suzuka Mambo
5x expanded by Athomeinkobe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC).
DYKcheck sez that "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (279 days)". It is also still classified as a stub. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce, it appears DYKcheck sez wrong. The version immediately before I expanded the article had 82 words. The version that was current when I submitted the DYK had 422 words, so it was expanded more than 5x. It also had more than 2,100 characters (2,500 if you count spaces), so it is well over the 1,500 minimum required for DYK and the 250 words generally considered the stub level. In any event, I have expanded it further, so it is now at 484 words, almost 6x expansion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I did take a look at the history, but eventually doubted my own maths (maybe a lil' off 5x??) and trusted what DYKcheck said... Now that's out of the way, I'm happy to say this is good to go: has been expanded, hook is interesting and cited, and article as a whole is well-referenced.
Cheers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I did take a look at the history, but eventually doubted my own maths (maybe a lil' off 5x??) and trusted what DYKcheck said... Now that's out of the way, I'm happy to say this is good to go: has been expanded, hook is interesting and cited, and article as a whole is well-referenced.
