Template:Did you know nominations/Nora Volkow


 * 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 Allen3 talk 02:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient recent expansion

Nora Volkow

 * ... that Nora Volkow (pictured), the Mexican-born scientist who heads the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the NIH, is also Leon Trotsky's great granddaughter?

5x expanded by SavannahMarie32 (talk). Nominated by Hildabast (talk) at 03:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Previous revision was 2,435 bytes in prose. Current revision is 3,565 bytes. Expansion is not fivefold, which should have been twelve kilobytes in prose. I'm still waiting for further expansion or promotion to GA. George Ho (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a BLP that wasn't sourced before it was worked on and so only needed a two-fold expansion, as I understood the criteria. It appeared to have 2 sources, but it didn't: it was a single newspaper article cited twice that was only an interview with the subject. I thought you needed more than that for a BLP to be sourced. Apologies if I wasted your time! Hildabast (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and make it two-fold, and next time comment with the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done, I think. Thank you!Hildabast (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Simple math: 2,435 * 2 = 4,870, - you are at 3,565. - I had a similar case and argued that to add extra filling stuff just for formality was not worth it. Did you think about GA? That's really an alternative these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh blast - this is because I did the count before I shortened a section to make it more likely to meet the NPOV criteria and didn't think of going back and checking the count again! I'll add enough to get it back over the line this morning. It's not a big enough priority to me to go for GA, but someone else will. I'll chase that up. Hildabast (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I trust that you will know better if expanding or quality work are easier to handle. For GA, you need more lead, - that will help the count anyway ;) For example, simply evaluate some of her awards in prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the extra bytes. For the characters count, I now make it 6200 compared to 2400 in the original, so in character count it's a long way over the 2x characters now. (And will definitely get someone to do the work involved in getting to GA status.) Thanks! Hildabast (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the prose bytes count is 3,900+. This excludes headings, infoboxes, references, et cetera. See WP:DYK. George Ho (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Actually, the previous revision was referenced with just two NY Times articles. Even so, the BLP wasn't fully unreferenced. It was just nearly-unreferenced with just one source. Because it's referenced, twofold expansion for BLP won't apply to a previously-sourced BLP. I've changed it back to "5x", so work on it. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Really confused about this prose bytes count thing - the criteria and tools are about characters and I'm not sure whether you mean 3,900 is the before or after count (I don't know how the prose bytes count is measured - I can only see overall bytes, and tools that calculate characters). Either way, since it's 7 days, looks to me like it's just not eligible for DYK. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildabast (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 7 days is from nomination, after that no limit, - only that March would be best. There is a tool called DYK check, the results were given above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm... perhaps convert Awards and nominations section from list format to prose format? George Ho (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you counting the list? Those don't count as readable prose.  There's a tool you can use to get an accurate count here: User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.  In this case, because it wasn't unreferenced to begin with it would need a 5x expansion, which seems like it would be a lot of work at this point, unfortunately.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is known that the list doesn't "count", therefore recommended to transform it to prose, - but I think that would still not make it 5*. Did you ever hear WP:IAR? How important is that little bit of referencing that was there, when we have the chance to show a women with achievements? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't do that for events' sake, but will an administrator do that? --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, Nora Volkow is an impressive woman. Gerda, I believe your previous suggestion of taking this through GA is the wisest path forward on this one. Even if someone were willing to Ignore All Rules, such a move on this one would possibly tie it up on the WT:DYK with nothing happening but arguments, and possibly killing it. Here's what we have:
 * 2435 characters with two sources, pre-expansion
 * 3921 characters current size (not even two-fold expansion)
 * Lists are not counted in character size
 * So, it doesn't make it at DYK in time for Women's History Month. Big whoopie-doo...it can come back as a Good Article.  It doesn't have to be in March. Don't let this nomination die.  Let this accomplished woman have her day on the main page after GA. — Maile  (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And one more thing. I'll admit that the reason I first noticed this was because of the Leon Trotsky in the hook.  However, in respect to this woman, focusing on her famous ancestor seems to detract from her life's work and the real reasons she is notable. — Maile  (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, everyone, that I missed the bit in the eligibility criteria that said that lists don't count - and I used one of the tools linked to, that just involved cutting and pasting what you chose, so it never became obvious to me. Nor that a single news source is regarded as a sourced biography - and, that you can use the same source twice, that counts as two sources here (although I think that's just wrong). I don't think the Trotsky hook is irrelevant or that it detracts: it was, she said in an interview, inherent to why she became a doctor and scientist - and drawing attention is the goal of DYK. DYK has things in there like "did you know one man is responsible for...." and has the same overall gender problems of the Wikipedia. In Women's History Month at least, it would have been good to break that stream just a little more. While I see the arguments everyone is making for going the GA route, that assumes there is someone who is going to do that work. I'm not. Not because she doesn't deserve it, but because outside Women's History Month, I contribute to WikiProject Medicine, and that has very few consistently contributing, experts in women's health issues. Thanks for your time with this - I learned a lot. And will start contributing to DYK. But if the person nominating isn't an author, telling them to take it the GA route isn't an alternative. Hildabast (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry. You don't have to be an article's author to apply the GA nom to the talk. My first was for an author who was blocked then, - several people helped, I believe in collaboration. Why don't you just try, and may be told by a reviewer if it works, - or what be needed, and THEN decide if it can be done? The project might help, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hildabast (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems consensus is that this does not count as an unreferenced BLP because the original article did cite one source, and even counting the list the expansion is about 2.5x. It looks like the required further expansion is unlikely to happen, so I'm marking this as not passed. As noted, this would still be eligible for DYK if it is improved to GA status. I hope to see this article back here in the future! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)