Template:Did you know nominations/Jon-Erik Beckjord


 * 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn; no possibility seen to achieve a 5x expansion

Jon-Erik Beckjord

 * ... that crypto-researcher Jon-Erik Beckjord (pictured) believed the Loch Ness Monster was an alien pet?


 * ALT1:... that Jon-Erik Beckjord's (pictured) UFO and Bigfoot museum was billed as one of San Francisco's "strangest?"
 * ALT2:... that Jon-Erik Beckjord (pictured) believed Martian lava and rock formations resembled Ted Kennedy and Tammy Faye Bakker?
 * Comment: Reviewed: Devin Wilson
 * Comment: Reviewed: Devin Wilson

5x expanded by SojoQ (talk). Self-nominated at 11:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg Insufficiently expanded
 * General eligibility
 * New enough: - Not expanded 5×. Size at nomination: 24,645 bytes; size before expansion: 7,339 bytes. 24645 ÷ 7339 = 3.358. User:Shubinator/DYKcheck reports "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 400 edits ago on 7 December 2005"
 * Long enough:
 * Policy compliance
 * Adequate sourcing: - Lead is not sourced, however the article is adequately sourced. Many references have  problems, but I assume those are acceptable.
 * Neutral:
 * Free from copyvio etc:
 * Hook eligibility
 * Cited: Main: yes; ALT1: AGF; ALT2: yes
 * Interesting:
 * Format: - Could benefit from more linking.
 * Image eligibility
 * Freely licensed: - Uncertain — it appears on a blog dated 2 days before upload
 * Used in article:
 * Clear at 100px: - Barely, but I guess so.
 * QPQ:
 * — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. If it's not too late, I'd like to go back and see if I can expand the page to meet the requirements. I've included URLs to the articles/references where I can find them. I have copies of all the articles, but wasn't always able to find URLS to older articles. The photo was on the page when I started editing, but I'll see if I can find out if the blog poster and the person who uploaded the image are the same person. It might take me a few days to track everything down and update the page. SojoQ (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now that I've looked at this again, can I have clarification on whether the article is long enough? There seems to be contradictory information on the review list. There's an x saying the article isn't expanded enough, but a √ saying the article is long enough. Also, I was able to track down information on the image. The author of the article also took the photo and uploaded it to WikiCommons. The permission on the image is valid. SojoQ (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SojoQ, every DYK-nominated article must be a minimum of 1500 prose characters, but if it isn't a new article or a GA, it must also be 5x expanded. So the article is above the 1500 minimum required for all nominated articles ("long enough"), but as a pre-existing article that has been expanded, it was at 3903 prose characters prior to expansion according to a DYKcheck on the article as it was on September 18. A 5x expansion would require 19515 prose characters, but the article is currently at 10944 prose characters, again according to DYKcheck, so you're currently 8571 prose characters short of 5x. Unfortunately, this means you'd need to expand the article more than you've expanded it already in order for it to qualify. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. I will check to see whether I can do the expansion. There's a lot of drama around this topic and this person I needed to sift through to do the rewrite. If I don't have enough factual information from reliable sources, I will withdraw the nomination. I'd rather do that than pad the page with fluff and nonsense. I'll get back with an answer today or tomorrow. Cheers! SojoQ (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I took another look at my notes for this page. I think what happened was that I changed a lot of content--upgraded the text and tracked down broken or inaccurate links and references, but the word count didn't change much. I don't have a lot more to add in terms of content, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for this page. Thanks, OwenBlacker and BlueMoonset for your feedback. My apologies for submitting an article that hadn't been expanded enough. I'll double check next time. Best Regards SojoQ (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, SojoQ. Feel free to ping me or leave a note on my Talk: page if you resubmit it :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)