Template:Did you know nominations/Melbourne Law School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 03:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently ineligible for DYK, but may be renominated if promoted to GA.

Melbourne Law School

  • ... that there was no organised legal education in Australia until the start of lectures at Melbourne Law School in 1857? Source: Waugh, John (2007). First principles : the Melbourne Law School, 1857-2007 p 5-8
    • Reviewed:

Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 06:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @MaxnaCarta: Thank you for what I presume is your first DYK submission. You've done admirable expansion, but I haven't seen evidence that it meets the 5x expansion threshold needed for DYK. Also, less seriously but still blocking approval, are a couple of paragraphs lacking citations altogether. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  • @John M Wolfson: mate, thanks so much for the review! It is indeed my first DYK submission. I increased the text by over 50%, I thought that would count, and I do think the significant media content should get it over the line? This article was more or less just a rehashing of the university website before I got going, with little context and such. If I ensure each paragraph is cited, will this help? Or should I abandon this DYK nom for now and consider it rejected. Thanks for being so kind, it is my first and I was not sure if it would get through or not. I am surprised by the threshold and complexity of the requirements! MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry, man, the prose has to be expanded fivefold for it to count, and if that's not feasible I'll have to reject this nom (the citations would help the article, but not this nom without the expansion). Don't get discouraged, though, you've done a great job and certainly belong on Wikipedia. Best of luck in your future DYKs!
      • @John M Wolfson: oh it is no worries, if I get it rejected, I will just keep working on this until it's ready for a GA nom and then once approved, I can resubmit the DYK nom. If it cannot be approved this time, it's fine. How close am I to the threshold? Is it a matter of bytes to increase? I feel like it is at least 2-3 times improved. What is the actual metric to measure whether it is improved five-fold? Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
        • @MaxnaCarta: The threshold for fivefold expansion is that the article's prose text size (in bytes) must be expanded by five times. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 02:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: Yes, GA-to-DYK is certainly a viable pipeline, one which I've used many a time myself. As for the 5x increase, the readable prose size (i.e., excluding charts, tables, infoboxes, etc.) was at 7.6 kB before you improved it, meaning it would have to be increased to 38kB in the next couple of days. However, it's only at 17k bytes, so I don't think it's feasible at this point unless you want to go on a mad rave. Best of luck in your GAC! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the better explanation. :) dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 02:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)