- The following discussion 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 18:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Civil Affairs Staging Area[edit]
- ... that the Civil Affairs Staging Area provided training and planning in civil affairs administration during world War II?
- Comment: Via AfC.
Created by Nvidia9 (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 17:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC).
Not eligible. created on 21 November and no major expansion since then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- @The C of E: As noted above, this was created and published - on 27 December - Via AfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK Check says Article moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Civil Affairs Staging Area on December 27, 2013, so it's eligible. That Nov creation date by someone else is confusing, as the history says on Nov 27 " (Anne Delong moved page User:Nvidia9/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Civil Affairs Staging Area: Preferred location for AfC submissions) ", where it stayed until Dec 27. The date it was moved out of AFC is the date that qualifies it. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is new enough, having been moved into mainspace on 27th December, and is certainly long enough. The hook fact is mentioned in several places and is referenced in the lead section. QPQ not necessary. I made no attempt to consider close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The article needs some more work to be considered eligible here. I have not done a thorough view, but I note that: (1) Several passages in the article are not supported by reference citations; (2) the level of minute detail in the article exceeds what an encyclopedia reader could be reasonably expected to want to wade through; (3) the "Special Events" section consists entirely of direct quotations whose source is identified, but are not properly punctuated and identified (additionally, a lot of the content seems unduly detailed/trivial for the encyclopedia); and (4) the text includes a parenthetical "go Aggies!" that was inserted by the article creator, making me wonder how much similar silliness I would find if I read the article closely. I note that the only source cited is a US government work that is copyright-free, so copyvio should not be an issue (but plagiarism could be).
- Additionally, I think the hook could be improved. For example:
- ALT1: ... that during World War II, the U.S. military had a training program to prepare for establishing civil administration in Asia after the end of Japanese control? --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator has failed to respond after over two weeks, including a second talk-page ping on January 28 requesting action here. Edits to article have not addressed the issues raised. Closing as unsuccessful, unless nominator stops by before nomination is formally rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)