The following discussion 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: promoted by Orlady ( talk) 17:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Upper Krishna Project

• ... that 136 villages have completely been submerged in the backwaters of the reservoirs constructed as a part of the Upper Krishna Project?

Created/expanded by Ratnakar.kulkarni ( talk). Self nom at 12:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I found both the hook and the article interesting. The hook is backed by a seemingly reliable source. The article is long enough, etc. It's good to go. -- Local hero ^talk 17:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article is not close to being long enough. Since this is an expansion of an existing article, it must be a 5x expansion of what had been there. Prior to the current expansion, the article had 632 prose characters, and therefore must be expanded to 3160 characters. At present, the article is 1636 characters, about a 2.6x expansion only. Another 1524 characters must be added for the article to be eligible. Does the expander think this will be feasible? The article will have to just about double its current length in prose. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that expansions had to be 5 times the original length of prose. In that case, you're right; it's not ready. -- Local hero ^talk 04:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops my bad, I had checked the new length using this tool and found that it had more than 3k characters, what I forgot was to check the length of the old one. I will get back in few hours and let you guys know whether I can expand it or not although there is a lot of scope for expansion.I would not like to waste the time of the editors.-- sarvajna ( talk) 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I was able to expand the page by adding few more details, can you please review it again? Thanks -- sarvajna ( talk) 11:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

DYKcheck shows that the article has been expanded sufficiently to meet DYK's 5x expansion requirement, though it is still classified as a stub, when it should be at least a start-class by now. (Stubs aren't eligible for DYK, so this will need to be fixed.)

I won't be able to do a full review, but the new UKP-Stage III section consists of four paragraphs, only one of which contains an inline source. All of them, but especially the one about financial mismanagement, must have at least one source citation. Perhaps Local hero will be able to re-review once you've included the sourcing and taken care of the classification issue. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the issues, thanks for your review.I will request Local hero to review it.-- sarvajna ( talk) 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, the length issue has been resolved, the article has been reclassified, and each paragraph now has an inline citation. Thanks for making all of the necessary changes. The article is now ready. -- Local hero ^talk 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)