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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Age

• ... that Tropical Storm Fran was the deadliest tropical cyclone in the history of Cape Verde?

Created/expanded by 12george1 (talk) at 02:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• First or second nom. No need for QPQ.
• The article relies on four sources. One of the major sources is a one page document and it references the first paragraph. I've read and reread this one page document. I'm not entirely certain it completely supports the text. (The document does not say the "A well-defined tropical wave emerged into the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa on September 14, 1984". It does say "The system continued to organize and quickly developed into a tropical depression at 1200 UTC on September 15." It does say "The Dvorak Satellite Classification System indicated the system attained tropical storm status the afternoon of 16 September as it turned northwest, and passed just south of the southernmost Cape Verde Island." It is unclear where 1200UTC comes from. Island names are mentioned in the article but they don't appear in the source. When I checked the Wikipedia pages for them, they did not indicate these islands were ""south of the Southernmost Cape Verde Island"" referenced in the source. There is no source in the article which states the island locations to confirm the fact from the source about location.

• I fixed the problem with citations for times mentioned in the article (such as 1200 UTC). However, about the islands, I decided to simply say "south of the southernmost islands of Cape Verde" because the source says it, but it doesn't get more specific than that.--12george1 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Article has not been expanded five fold. 2801 B (446 words) "readable prose size" was the size as of 11 August, the last date before article expansion began on March 9. Current prose size is 4968 B (706 words) "readable prose size". That is less than half an expansion. --LauraHale (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The article had previously been created and then merge, though I restored it on March 9. Therefore, I believe it has been expanded at least five fold. See the revision history for more info.--12george1 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Can you provide more information? I am looking at the history. Article size for 4 August 2011 says the size is: "Prose size (text only): 2801 B (446 words) "readable prose size"" Even checking the most recent edit, the size says "Prose size (text only): 4968 B (706 words) "readable prose size"" The only reference I see to a merge is "04:57, 21 September 2010 Hurricanehink (talk contribs) . . (64 bytes) (-3,248) . . (merging) (undo) ". Even on a re-review, I do not see a five fold expansion. Specific link to the version you believe it was expanded five fold from and an explanation as to why the previous expansion should not be the 4 August 2011 date. --LauraHale (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Everything between these two edits was on a sandbox and not a mainspace edit. So in the last few days, this article went from simply a redirect to almost 7,800 bytes.--12george1 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I need a second opinion. :( Did you do a history merge on the article on the 12th from an article that you were drafting on the user space for over a year? --03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, I was not the one who merged the history. It was Hurricanehink, who moved the page from my user space to the main space.--12george1 (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• What date did you create the page on your user space? --LauraHale (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Erk. Okay. I think I finally see it. The article was created on your user space on earlier, moved over in the time period, and expansion is base on 21 September 2010. Will review from that. --LauraHale (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• That is one really goofy history. This version shows that the article was merged to 1984 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Fran. On 13 July 2011, 12george copied this pre-merge version to his userspace with this edit. As such, he was further developing the article from an already established base. Hurricanehink then moved the user space draft over the redirect on 12 March and, it appears, performed a history merge.

Per DYK criteria 1a and 1b, namely

a) For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article.
b) Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles. The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count. Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references; it is calculated using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or a similar extension.

this is not long enough, as it consists of pre-existing text which was not a 5x expansion. Sorry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Hook is properly formatted. ARticle is submitted on time. No copyright violations when checked. Pictures have copyright tags. Articles are neutral enough.
• This source does not support hook. It says 135. BERYL: Cape Verde Is. is more deadly in Cape Verde than Fran was. on page 40. The hook says Tropical cyclone , which redirects to Hurricane and yes. Just not certain this is supported. At this point, this is the only remaining issue. --LauraHale (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)