- 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 North America 1000 06:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Camp Napoleon Council
- ... that the Camp Napoleon Council compact, intended to strengthen the bargaining position of Confederate-supporting tribes after the American Civil War, actually had no such effect.? (183 characters)
- ALT1:...the Camp Napoleon Council compact, intended to strengthen the bargaining position of tribes after the Civil War, did not affect the subsequent Reconstruction Treaties? (178 characters)
- I prefer Alt1 because it is slightly shorter.
- Reviewed: Royal Stag (currently in progress)
5x expanded by Bruin2 ( talk). Self-nominated at 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
-
Although an impressive expansion, I am afraid this article does not meet DYK requirements. The page counter tool does not include block quotes, so the text of the compact and the section on signatories is not included. Before expansion the article was 1359 B and now it is 3395 B, which is a long way short of a five-fold expansion.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- User:Bluemoonset has shown me the applicable WP policy statement covering the use of the direct quote in the word count. I have removed the quotation, which, of course makes this nomination ineligible. It is unlikely that I can find sufficient info to bring the word count up to the required level of expansion, so the nomination should be considered withdrawn. I will also revert the article to Stub class, unless the reviewers feel it should be deleted altogether. Bruin2 ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2016 (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 North America 1000 06:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Camp Napoleon Council
- ... that the Camp Napoleon Council compact, intended to strengthen the bargaining position of Confederate-supporting tribes after the American Civil War, actually had no such effect.? (183 characters)
- ALT1:...the Camp Napoleon Council compact, intended to strengthen the bargaining position of tribes after the Civil War, did not affect the subsequent Reconstruction Treaties? (178 characters)
- I prefer Alt1 because it is slightly shorter.
- Reviewed: Royal Stag (currently in progress)
5x expanded by Bruin2 ( talk). Self-nominated at 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
-
Although an impressive expansion, I am afraid this article does not meet DYK requirements. The page counter tool does not include block quotes, so the text of the compact and the section on signatories is not included. Before expansion the article was 1359 B and now it is 3395 B, which is a long way short of a five-fold expansion.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- User:Bluemoonset has shown me the applicable WP policy statement covering the use of the direct quote in the word count. I have removed the quotation, which, of course makes this nomination ineligible. It is unlikely that I can find sufficient info to bring the word count up to the required level of expansion, so the nomination should be considered withdrawn. I will also revert the article to Stub class, unless the reviewers feel it should be deleted altogether. Bruin2 ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)