Template:Did you know nominations/Moby-Dick

Moby-Dick

 * *... that in the first British edition of Moby-Dick Ishmael did not survive the sinking of the Pequod?

5x expanded by MackyBeth (talk). Self nominated at 14:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg There's no 5x expansion on this article. Prose size on 24 November, before expansion started, was 31,494 chars, current size is 54,717, so the expansion is just less than 1.75x. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk page of the article, especially proposal to remove the enormous amount of unsourced material--sourced to nothing else than the book itself--added to it years ago. Should that material, mainly a long list of Characters, not be counted, then the recent additions come a lot closer.MackyBeth (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, not really sure about this as I have not been attempting DYK reviews for long but I still think it will fail under the following rule; "A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." Sorry about this, but as far as I can see it's still not expanded enough. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that looks like you got a point there. The nomination is harpooned.MackyBeth (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gracious and funny! A bit longer-term but what about trying to get it to GA status? New GA's can be nominated for DYK as well. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I had assumed that articles would automatically be rated higher as they improve, but apparently you have to apply for it. Thanks for the advice, I'll check out the criteria for lifting this article out of its unMelvillean B status, which may occur sometime in the new year..MackyBeth (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just had a look at it and actually even the B-status for this article is a generous judgment, so it will take time to get it better. To make this article most useful for readers, all relevant information is added as soon as possible, and then matters of style and conciseness will be addressed.MackyBeth (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The article now has fewer characters than in the original review, so I think it's time to remove it from the nomination list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcp67 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 December 2013‎