The result was: promoted by
PFHLai (
talk) 02:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Improved to Good Article status by Human3015 ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC).
The history of
Royal Stag indicates the article expansion began on January 9, and the DYK nomination was made on January 18, two days over the 7-day window. Before the expansion, the Word Count was 1479. At 8:07 PM PST, the Word Count tool showed it had 1335 words, so it does not pass the 5X expansion minimum, or the 5,000 character minimum for the prose section. The Earwig copyvio test hows the article has no serious copyvios, plagiarism or close paraphrasing. in my opinion. The hook contains 75 characters, which passes length criterion. The hook fact is cited with an in-line citation. It is moderately interesting, though I wonder if a more attention grabbing hook could be found.
There is no negative statement about any living individual.
The nomination passes the QPQ criterion.
The corporate logo is non-free use image, but the fair use rationale seems to conform to Wikipedia policy. This issue was apparently discussed and resolved prior to the current expansion.
Bruin2 (
talk) 04:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
PFHLai (
talk) 02:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Improved to Good Article status by Human3015 ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC).
The history of
Royal Stag indicates the article expansion began on January 9, and the DYK nomination was made on January 18, two days over the 7-day window. Before the expansion, the Word Count was 1479. At 8:07 PM PST, the Word Count tool showed it had 1335 words, so it does not pass the 5X expansion minimum, or the 5,000 character minimum for the prose section. The Earwig copyvio test hows the article has no serious copyvios, plagiarism or close paraphrasing. in my opinion. The hook contains 75 characters, which passes length criterion. The hook fact is cited with an in-line citation. It is moderately interesting, though I wonder if a more attention grabbing hook could be found.
There is no negative statement about any living individual.
The nomination passes the QPQ criterion.
The corporate logo is non-free use image, but the fair use rationale seems to conform to Wikipedia policy. This issue was apparently discussed and resolved prior to the current expansion.
Bruin2 (
talk) 04:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)