Talk:Solar eclipse of June 19, 1936

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar eclipse of June 19, 1936. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 reviewer, closed by BorgQueen talk 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Converted from a redirect by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 05:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Solar eclipse of June 19, 1936; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

A real shame: solid article, great hook, but simply not eligible at the moment: not a GA, was created in December 2009 and not expanded 5x within the seven-day window. I would strongly suggest nominating this one for GA and bringing it back: it would be lovely to have on the front page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I expanded it from a redirect on October 17; I don't know if this counts or not (I didn't think it did, but I was told it did). jp×g 01:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
jp×g, UndercoverClassicist is correct. The point behind DYK is that you should be contributing a completely new article, or new additions at 5× the prior retained material; in this case, you have completely reconstituted the prior article of 2852 prose characters, and added 1333 prose characters to get an article of 4185 characters, an expansion of just under 1.5×. For this article to be eligible, you would need to expand the article to 14260, or over 10000 additional prose characters beyond where it is now, which I doubt is feasible. Whoever you told you this counted was, unfortunately, incorrect. If your other nominated solar eclipse articles are expanded in similar fashion (reconstituted and expanded), they likely won't meet the expansion criteria either. GAN is your only route at this point. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is fine to me either way. I expanded these because they'd been redirected, and then a bit afterwards someone told me they were eligible for DYK, so I figured "why not?". If these are all ineligible, it means I get a ton of QPQs back to use on other stuff, so I will not weep. jp×g 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Let me know if these are no good, because this is the case for the others and I'll go withdraw them if so -- no sense making reviewers slog through unnecessary noms. jp×g 03:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
jp×g, I checked the other seven, and they're all in the same situation as this one as regards DYK. Again, sorry for the bad news. I'm glad you got these back from redirects. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, checking them off here for my own convenience: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Stick a fork in 'em. jp×g 05:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_eclipse_of_June_19,_1936&oldid=1201016211"