Template:Did you know nominations/Great Britain national rugby union team (sevens)
Appearance
- 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 Allen3 talk 10:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Great Britain national rugby union team (sevens), Great Britain women's national rugby union team (sevens)
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ...
that the Great Britain men's and women's national rugby sevens teams (flag pictured) will make their competitive debuts at the 2016 Summer Olympics?
- ALT1:... that the Great Britain men's and women's national rugby sevens teams (flag pictured) cannot select Northern Irish players for the Olympics due to the Irish Rugby Football Union?
- Reviewed: Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink, Wrestle Kingdom 9
Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 18:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC).
New enough (yesterday) and just about long enough (1.8k chars). Hooks stated and sourced, though prefer the first - "demands" is a bit loaded, maybe omit the last part and end it at Olympics so that readers can click through to see why? QPQ done. Removed credit for the women's article, which is not eligible for DYK because it substantially paraphrases the men's article. There is not enough unique prose for it to qualify on its own merits given that there is only one differing sentence, on how they got to the Olympics. Not seeing a compelling reason to include the image either; GB is not exactly obscure and it would be more relevant to include a photo of the team(s) instead. Fuebaey (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: While I am grateful for the green tick, I must object to the notion that the women's one isn't eligible. Yes it was originally a close paraphrasing however I noticed this and made a number of substantial changes which was limited by the fact that the women's team had only just qualified that day and there was a limited number of sources available. I can make more alterations if that would suffice for your satisfaction. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I stand by what was written previously and - with respect to Rule 1a - cannot in good faith pass both articles. I understand that there is a lack of information out there but, at the time of the original review, I could have redirected one article to the other and added one sentence for the same result. For me, splitting an article and changing a few words is not enough to garner a DYK credit. However as a compromise, I would consider passing them if the second article contained an additional 1,500 characters of prose compared to the first - in other words 3,286 chars.
- On a minor note, take care to add a fresh signature when sending out notifications. They tend to not go through without one. Fuebaey (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Correction: they absolutely won't go through without a fresh ~~~~. EEng (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @EEng: I'm sorry, I don't quite follow? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey: It is now 3,330 characters long. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Correction: they absolutely won't go through without a fresh ~~~~. EEng (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unless the flag itself is the subject of the hook, this is not a good use of the image slot. EEng (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Men's team already made its debut in 2005 World Games (IRB website). Miodzio3 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, striking the original hook. I realise the hook wasn't directly sourced but I assumed that, given that rugby sevens will make its official Olympic debut in Rio, that the hook was valid. Apparently not, so the articles need to be amended to reflect that. On the expansion, could you please copyedit it first - some sentences seem to be missing the odd word and don't make much sense. I would also suggest splitting long sentences to make it more readable but it's not a pressing concern for DYK. Fuebaey (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)