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
SL93 (
talk) 18:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
A month with no improvements.
ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
@
CeeGee: Well then, I guess that I should have saved myself the trouble of entering the nomination and saved you the trouble of reviewing it. I have no more material on George Abell with which to further expand the article. So, I guess that it is no go on this one. Thank you for your effort in the review.
Shortsword (
talk) 18:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Shortsword: Do not give up so early. DYK-check excludes following portions from the readable prose: (Career#Palomar sky survey): min. 591 chars, (Career#Teaching): min. 206 chars, (Career#Skeptism): min. 649 chars, (Astronical namesakes): min. 211 chars, (Affiliations): min. 783 chars. In total min. 2,440 chars. If it is possible to rewrite the structured text in prose, maybe you can save your DYK-nom. The artcile deserves to appear on the main page.Good luck.
CeeGee 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It has been a month, and no attempt has been made to edit the article further to make it eligible for DYK. Regretfully marking it for closure; note that should this ever become a Good Article, it would be eligible for DYK within seven days of being listed.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
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
SL93 (
talk) 18:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
A month with no improvements.
ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
@
CeeGee: Well then, I guess that I should have saved myself the trouble of entering the nomination and saved you the trouble of reviewing it. I have no more material on George Abell with which to further expand the article. So, I guess that it is no go on this one. Thank you for your effort in the review.
Shortsword (
talk) 18:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Shortsword: Do not give up so early. DYK-check excludes following portions from the readable prose: (Career#Palomar sky survey): min. 591 chars, (Career#Teaching): min. 206 chars, (Career#Skeptism): min. 649 chars, (Astronical namesakes): min. 211 chars, (Affiliations): min. 783 chars. In total min. 2,440 chars. If it is possible to rewrite the structured text in prose, maybe you can save your DYK-nom. The artcile deserves to appear on the main page.Good luck.
CeeGee 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It has been a month, and no attempt has been made to edit the article further to make it eligible for DYK. Regretfully marking it for closure; note that should this ever become a Good Article, it would be eligible for DYK within seven days of being listed.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)