Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt High School (St. Louis, Missouri)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Roosevelt High School (St. Louis, Missouri)[edit]

Entrance to Roosevelt High School

  • Comment: Happy Holidays to all -- this is more of a Halloween sort of nomination, though. The specific bit about kids and bones is at the bottom of page 175 of reference #3.
  • Comment: I reviewed Meridian 5 poroubalous (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Poroubalous (talk). Self nom at 05:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Article is definitely long enough. Facts in the hook come from offline sources so I'll AGF. Looking at other parts of the article with online sources suggests sufficient rewording to avoid copyright or close paraphrasing. Hook length ok, interesting. I do have a question, though. Since the user moved this from his userspace, there are old edits in the history that should IMO be moved back by an admin. That aside, though, it appears that the user copied Beaumont High School (St. Louis, Missouri) into his userspace on December 17 as a template, then slowly (beginning on the 18th) modified the article. As the article was nominated on the 25th, that would put it over 5 days old. However, it appears that the majority of the actual rewrite occured on the 24th, so it could pass as a 5x expansion I suppose. It's hard to tell exactly because the user left Beaumont information in the sandbox and simply wrote over it, making the size in the history not accurately reflect the amount of information about Roosevelt High School. I would like someone else to look over this.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The hook is at the bottom of this page [1] so no need for AGF. The majority of information that remains from the previous article was the infobox, layout, tables and charts, which just needed different numbers and data. The prose on the history of Roosevelt is entirely new information. poroubalous (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, I looked at the Google Books link during my initial review, but I didn't see a preview available. My fault. Hook still checks out, though. As for the information, I am aware that it is all new, but since you started actually writing the article on the 18th, nominating it on the 25th makes it 7 days old, not five. That would mean that it would have to qualify as a 5x expansion from the Dec 18th version to the Dec 25th version. So the question then becomes: Is the amount of Roosevelt High School content present on the 25th five times larger than the amount of Roosevelt High School content on the 18th. The numbers in the history don't give a clear indication of this, though I suspect it is correct. As I am fairly new to the DYK nomination process, I would appreciate it if another editor with more expertise in the area would confirm my suspicions.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You're entirely right that I started modifying it in the sandbox on December 18 and moved it into article namespace on the 25th. I thought I could do that and the clock started ticking on the 25th (not the 18th), but maybe not? You're right, a second opinion is needed. poroubalous (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm about to sound like a horribly nasty bureaucrat, so forgive me -- under Rule D8 of the Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, "Five days old means five days old in article space. You may write your article on a user subpage and perfect it for months. The five days start when you move it into article space." I think that fixes the issue of how old it is, no? poroubalous (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I guess that spells it out clearly. Good to go!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)