This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
Overall: Hook is cited and the article is so, so nearly there, but you're a few bytes shorts from meeting the "5x expanded" criteria. Leaving this open so that you can address this. Jordano5307:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustJamie820 and Jordano53: 5x expansion is done by characters, not bytes. Pre-expansion, this was 1388 characters and it's now 6429, a roughly 4.63x expansion. I'd IAR that given that this is clearly approaching GA quality, but I would want the article nominated for that first. For what it's worth, I don't think quickfail QPQs should count, but this was discussed last month and no consensus was formed.--Launchballer14:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jordano53 and Launchballer: Jordano, thank you for reviewing, and Launchballer, thank you for also contributing (and, honestly, telling me it's close to GA...that's an honor because I just thought of it as B-class at most). Just for clarity, do I need to add more words to get this to pass, or does the IAR ideal make it okay without a GA nomination? I have no problem with adding more info (though I always thought a DYK article couldn't change too much from its nomination to its placement on the front page), but I'll need some time (not too much, but some) to figure out what sort of data I can add to bulk up the article. Oh, one more thing, I will look for a different QPQ that isn't liable to be quickfailed. This will help the backlog. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You must be logged in to post a comment.