Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Air Force Marine Branch
- 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 Fuebaey (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Royal Air Force Marine Branch
[edit]
- ... that for 68 years the Royal Air Force (RAF) operated watercraft and built up a fleet of over a thousand boats and ships during World War II? (pictured)
- Comment:Partially spun off from RAF Search and Rescue Force, however the content spun off from that article was newly added by me, and the spin off was done to avoid overwhelming that article. May be too late to be done in time, or already too crowded, but I thought this would be a good candidate for an April first DYK. Presented straight, relying on the counter intuitive surprise of an air force operating boats and ships. First ever DYK nomination.
Created by KTo288 (talk). Self nominated at 10:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC).
@KTo288: Hmm, this one's a doozy. The article is new enough, long enough, and within policy (no close paraphrasing detected from the online sources). However, I'm not sure this complies with rule A5, which states, "If some of the text were copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article". The text copied from RAF Search and Rescue Force was written within the week from when it was split into Royal Air Force Marine Branch, but the rule states there must be an additional fivefold expansion (in the amount of characters) of the copied text. Maybe BlueMoonset knows what to do... Also there are quite a bit of paragraphs without citations, which would be desireable.
- Interesting topic nonetheless. Hope this won't dissuade you from making more nominations. 23W 04:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Additional reviewer 
- I will be reviewing this article according to WP:WIADYK
- New ✗ Fail The article in question was spun-off from the article RAF Search and Rescue Force on 12 March. Therefore, based on the nomination date selected, it passes. However, as it is a sub-article of an existing article, it needs to be expanded five fold. Looking at the parent article on the date of expansion, the article under review is largely built upon the history section of the parent article, but with additions. These additions do not meet the five fold requirement. Using the duplication checker, it found over 6,000 characters duplicated.
- Long enough ✓ Pass In its initial state it was already 12,033 characters long.
- Cited hook
Hook provided in this nomination is cited to a book published in 2010 by Pen and Sword Books. Per WP:OFFLINE it is not a requirement that the source be available on the internet. However, please provide an exact page in the reliable source that verifies the content in Wikipedia; it would help in meeting the verification requirement. - Within policy ✗ Fail Large portions of the article on the date listed for nomination are uncited, thus subject to WP:BURDEN.
- Review requirement (QPQ) ✓ Pass As this is the nominators first DYK and they do not yet have five DYK credits, no review of another nomination is required.
- Hook - Format ✓ Pass Hook has article boldly linked, starts properly, and measures 139 characters and thus considered as concise.
- Hook - Content ✓ Pass Hook is neutral, no BLP issues known.
- Image ✓ No image provided, nor is it required.
I am not passing this due to it not meeting the five-fold requirement. As 23W stated, just because this is declined, doesn't mean that you should not attempt to nominate for DYK. Better luck next time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)