Template:Did you know nominations/RetractionWatch

RetractionWatch
Created/expanded by MastCell (talk). Nominated by NuclearWarfare (talk) at 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that although the founders of RetractionWatch initially wondered if there would be enough retractions from scientific journals to run the blog, they covered over 200 such retractions within their first year?


 * A copy/paste into Microsoft Word says the article prose has 1,522 characters.  NW  ( Talk ) 00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I reviewed George Flett.  NW  ( Talk ) 00:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Using the 'Page Size' tool in the toolbox, I get a readable prose size of 1489 Bytes. I suppose Word would count the ref numbers including the square brackets, hence the difference. I'm sure you can find another two words.  Schwede 66  04:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Added another sentence. I should try to expand the article more anyway.  NW  ( Talk ) 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This still feels quite 'stubby' and it relies quite heavily on direct quotes. In fact, when I deduct the quotes, it's short of the 1500 minimum prose requirement (measured here). The rules aren't unambiguous: "ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc." So what is 'etc'? Can somebody else please chip in with determining whether this is long enough? I haven't looked at anything else yet.  Schwede 66  09:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The etc certainly includes direct quotes or some (have tried) to throw it a title, 2000 chars of quote and a ref and claim they had written the article. I find it easier to remember what 1500 chars - they are a-z, 1-9 characters that the author typed hat (s)he made into their own sentences. HTT Victuallers (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I've just looked at it and if you also remove "Andrew Surname from An important newsparer said that " then there is not much left. All of the ref stuff should be in the refs. OK it has 1632 characters, but a good copyedit could fix this. Victuallers (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article hasn't been expanded; quite the opposite. After a decent copyedit, it's now not just stubby, but also too short to meet DYK's minimum length requirements. If we don't see improvements by week's end, say, then we'll have to reject the nomination.  Schwede 66  03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a bunch of content to this article. It's now well above the minimum for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg size now up to 2.8K which is big enough and before end of week. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)