Template:Did you know nominations/John Brown (doctor)


 * 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 SL93 (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is not expanded enough and won't be.

John Brown (doctor)

 * ... that plays were written in Germany to criticize John Brown and his theory of medicine in the 1800s? Source:

Created/expanded by Krahaman1 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately this expansion is ineligible for DYK as it has gone from 6.3k to 14.8k characters since 8 March which is not a 5x expansion. If it was unsourced and a BLP then it would have been fine however this is not.   The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm getting 2,962 characters for this revision and 7,709 currently. This is still about half of the 14,630 characters that would be needed for a 5x expansion.  We usually allow a grace period to increase the length to the meet requirement.  If you or someone else is willing to add the extra text in the next two weeks or so, then this nomination can proceed.
 * You need to use the DYK check tool to get the readable prose length. The length on the History tab counts all characters, including invisible markup, and does not reflect the length of readable prose.  See Rule A3 for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony-22 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominator probably didn't see your ping. I put a note on his talk page. Yoninah (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the article needed to be expanded fivefold. Since it hasn't been expanded yet I'm assuming the nomination will not proceed? Krahaman1 (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg There has unfortunately been a great deal of confusion here, with unsigned posts, pings going awry, and all the rest. Krahaman1, if you think you can expand the article by another 6,921 prose characters in the next week and basically double its current size, your nomination will still be eligible; I'm sorry the process here has been so confusing. Alternatively, you could renominate this should the article become a Good Article, but having just looked at the article as it stands now—and had to tag it for a very inadequate lead section—I have to say that your chances of improving the article to GA level are not good: there is a great deal of work indeed to be done for it to meet the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I won't be able to expand it by that many characters within the next week. However, thank you for all of the help. I really appreciate your comments. Krahaman1 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Marking for closure, since article is insufficiently expanded and won't be. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)