Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Stagg (Irish republican)

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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article was not expanded 5x. The article may be renominated for DYK if it is brought to GA status or expanded another 5x.

Frank Stagg (Irish republican)

(

)

... that the body of Irish Republican Frank Stagg was buried on two separate occasions and had three separate gravesites due to disputes between his family, the Provisional IRA, and the Irish Government? Source: [Stagg's Three Funerals]
- ALT1:... that the body of Irish Republican Frank Stagg was exhumed and reburied by members of the Provisional IRA under the cover of night, despite the body being guarded by the Gardai for many months?

Created/expanded by CeltBrowne (talk). Self-nominated at 20:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC).

General eligibility:

New enough: - At the time of nomination, only two edits have been made to the article in March 2020 altogether; totalling 414 bytes added. As far as I can tell, this does not pass the "new enough" requirement as it was not created, expanded fivefold, moved to mainspace, or promoted to GA within the last week.
Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - Background section is unsourced; additionally, there are six "citation needed" tags throughout the article.
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: No QPQ necessary as nominator has 0 DYK credits per QPQ check. Hook is great and very interesting, but the article lacks the necessary recent expansion to qualify for DYK. Sourcing is also a bit dodgy, it'd probably be good to avoid having so many "citation needed" tags in an article featured on the main page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've left the nominator a talk page message informing them of the above review, and requesting their input on if they will be able to do the 5x expansion. As the nominator is a newcomer to DYK perhaps we can give them some leeway on that criterion, although the nomination can be closed if they do not respond or if they indicate that they will be unable to make the necessary edits. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now made further edits to the article, adding additional cititations. As you've said, this is my first time nominating for a DYK and I'm still getting to grips with all the requirements. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: The nominator has expanded the article further, could you please take another look? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 and CeltBrowne:

While the nominator did expand the article, his edit only totalled a 44% expansion of the article, which falls far short of the 500% expansion required for DYK. I have no problem with giving a little leeway, but I would classify that more as a 400–450% expansion, a mark that this falls a bit short of. The way I look at it, the nomination simply fails the "newness" criterion for DYK. I commend the nominator for being bold and nominating the article for DYK, and I would urge him to either try to get this close to 400–450% (which, admittedly would be a difficult task; the article would need about 23,800 bytes more to be added to cross the 400% threshold) or to expand 5x/create another article that would be suitable for DYK and nominate that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)