Template:Did you know nominations/Silat ad-Dhahr, Al-Judeida


 * 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: promoted by 4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Silat ad-Dhahr, al-Judeida

 * ... that the Palestinian villages of Silat ad-Dhahr (pictured) and al-Judeida were both mentioned in Crusader records?


 * Reviewed: Persoonia laurina; National Museum of Vietnamese History

5x expanded by Al Ameer son (talk) and Huldra (talk). Nominated by Al Ameer son (talk) at 20:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg: The article has not become 5x within the last 7 days before the nomination occurred. After this edit, the readable prose were 1375 characters and it never got 5x after 7 days! Mhhossein (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we could just cut out Silat ad-Dhahr, and just go with the same hook for al-Judeida? Huldra (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As of right now, thanks to recent expansion by Huldra and Nishidani, Silat ad-Dhahr is a few bytes short of the 5x mark. I could expand it a bit further as well. Is the Silat ad-Dhahr nomination still valid? If not, then yes as Huldra has suggested, we could drop Silat ad-Dhahr and just nominate al-Judeida with pretty much the same hook. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article history shows, al-Judeida have got 5x on 22 October and you could nominate it until 29 October and this is late for that. Anyway, as you have previously nominated Silat ad-Dhahr and the hook is almost the same (is it? I can't see it), I don't really know whether we can change the main bold article. I would ask User:BlueMoonset to get sure. Mhhossein (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Mhhossein, if an article is nominated but is short of the required size, we typically give the nominator(s) the opportunity to add to the article so it qualifies. In this case, Silat ad-Dhahr was 1375 prose characters seven days prior to nomination, which would require an expansion to 6875 prose characters. It's currently very close to that 5x expansion at 6659 prose characters, so another 216 will be needed if this is to qualify. As noted, al-Judeida already qualifies. I should note that two QPQs will be required, one for each nominated article—I'm assuming, Al Ameer son and Huldra, that you'll be expanding Silat ad-Dhahr, since it is still valid provided you add the necessary prose. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:BlueMoonset and User:Mhhossein: I´ve expanded  Silat ad-Dhahr a bit, and my latest DYK-check gives 6906 characters for that article. Is that enough? Huldra (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Huldra, DYKcheck is the gold standard and 6906 prose characters is 31 more than the minimum you needed. Unfortunately, though, blockquotes specifically do not count toward expansion, which needs to be original prose; I hadn't noticed that you had one quite long quote in the article that, per WP:Blockquote, needed to be set off. So I've done the necessary, and DYKcheck now pegs the article at 6338 prose characters. You'll need to add another 537 at least to get to the 5x expansion level, so I'm afraid it needs more work. Again, my apologies for not checking the article more closely before my earlier post. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:BlueMoonset: Besides the problem with the size, I can't verify the hook. It seems some sort of WP:OR to me. Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither article specifically mentions that its village is mentioned in Crusader records: this needs to be made explicit in both, and the respective sentences given inline source citations, for DYK hook requirements to be satisfied. If that isn't supported by the sources, another joint hook will need to be proposed, or separate hooks made for the two articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, where to begin. First, because the hook is not explicitly cited, I'd rather just break this into two separate nominations. I'm not sure about the mechanics of splitting a nomination, but I will write the revised hooks below. I'll do the QPQ reviews within the next hour. Finally (I hope), I will do my best to expand Silat ad-Dhahr today. By tomorrow, these issues should be settled. Sorry for the mess. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Revised hook for al-Judeida: ... that the Palestinian village of al-Judeida was a Crusader estate called "Gidideh"?


 * Revised hook for Silat ad-Dhahr: ... the Palestinian village of Silat ad-Dhahr (pictured) was purchased by the Knights Hospitallers from the Crusader viscount of Nablus?


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check the al-Judeida article and new hook; as of the present time, Silat ad-Dhahr remains insufficiently expanded at 6338 prose characters, so it will have to wait. Al Ameer, I'm willing to give you one more week to finish its promised expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being patient and allowing me more time, but I tried to find more info on Silat and had no luck finding anything significant. and I agreed that if I couldn't expand it further, that we should just drop the Silat nomination and so I'm dropping the nomination. We'll just stick with al-Judeida. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Al Ameer. I've struck the Silat hook and removed the DYKmake for it; I have, however, added a DYKmake for you for al-Judeida, since you also have contributed significantly to the article. Note to any reviewer: only the al-Judeida article and hook will need to be reviewed; the image is no longer relevant since it is not of al-Judeida. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Review for al-Judeida:

New enough (more than 5x expanded (275 -> 3148)), long enough, within policy, hook checks out directly to underlying source. QPQ done. I have removed the image as it relates to the other village which has been reviewed. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)