Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Rusty
- 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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cyclone Rusty[edit]
Cyclone Rusty on 26 February, 2013
- ... that Cyclone Rusty (pictured) caused sustained gales that affected Port Hedland for a record-breaking 39 hours straight?
Improved to Good Article status by Cyclonebiskit (talk). Nominated by Sovereign Sentinel (talk) at 16:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
Meets the seven-day criterion, character count exceeds 1,500 requirement. The topic is interesting and seems well-referenced, even though not all the opening paragraphs have citations. This is offset by the numerous citations in the body of the text. The article has been promoted to GA status. QPQ has been provided. The image is free (public domain), used in the article and shows up well. I have not yet completed a review of all sources for plagiarizing or close paraphrasing. So far, a partial review has revealed none. Bruin2 (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bruin2, if an article has been promoted to GA status in the seven days prior to nomination, then the 5x test is not relevant. GA is all that's necessary, though the 1,500 prose character minimum still applies. Indeed, when expanded articles fail the 5x test, we recommend that nominators come back once the article is listed as a GA. As for the intro not being cited: per WP:LEAD, no citations are needed there (unless a quote is used or controversial statements are made) so long as the equivalent information is cited in the body of the article. Let me know if you have any other questions; otherwise, please finish the review, making sure to start your final comment with the appropriate icon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I have revised my earlier review per your comments. Thanks for addressing them and clarifying a couple of points that I did not understand. As far as I'm concerned, this DYK is good to go. Bruin2 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bruin2 So have you completed the review, especially the copy-vio check? If you still need to finish the copy-vio check, try this tool.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- 3family6 Thanks for steering me to the copyvio tool, with which I was unfamiliar. It sped up my review quite substantially, and confirmed that there are no plagiarisms or copyvios. I doubt that it can access those citations from Lexis-Nexis as I have no access to that system. Bruin2 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
DYK review is complete. All criteria are satisfied. Bruin2 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)