Template:Did you know nominations/Portsmouth FC Basketball Club

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 10:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
No progress in resolving issues for over 2 weeks

Portsmouth FC Basketball Club

(

)

... that Portsmouth FC once beat Manchester United 99-89?

Created/expanded by W53dr4xi76a2jc1z39 (talk). Nominated by Hallows AG (talk) at 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

* Unfortunately, the article was moved from a sandbox into the main namespace on 17 January 2012 and then steadily worked on until it was nominated for DYK on 15 February 2012. Thus it was not created within the past five days. Furthermore, on 8 February 2012 it was 27528 characters long (there were no edits on 10 February), and on 15 February it was 22085 characters long, according to DYK Check, so it was not expanded at least fivefold within the past five days either. Otherwise, the hook is interesting, of the right length, and appears to be properly referenced (offline reference accepted in good faith). The article could also do with more references (the "Cunningham and Irish's Coastal Tour" section is entirely unreferenced), and copyediting and wikification (en dashes should be used in scores, e.g., "99–89"; external links should be in a bulleted list). — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was moved to the mainspace on 16 February (see here). --Hallows AG (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just worked out the rather complicated history of the article. It might help if in the future you leave comments for reviewers for similar articles.

Article. The article was worked on in W53dr4xi76a2jc1z39's user space and then at Articles for Creation before being moved into the main namespace on 16 February, so it can be regarded as a new article. On 16 February it was 22,085 characters long, according to DYK Check, so it is of an appropriate length. However, it could do with more references (the "Cunningham and Irish's Coastal Tour" section is entirely unreferenced), and a thorough copyediting and wikification (en dashes should be used in scores, e.g., "99–89"; external links should be in a bulleted list).

Hook. The hook is of the right length, and appears to be properly referenced (offline reference accepted in good faith). However, I think there are two issues with it:

"Manchester United" is a redirect to "Manchester United F.C.". I note from the article that the football club owned a basketball team, but as it is the link is rather confusing.
Not knowing anything about basketball, I can't tell what is interesting or unusual about it. Was "99–89" an unusual score, or was Manchester United a particularly strong team? I think more details might be needed.

— SMUconlaw (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The hook would be interesting to those who have a minimal knowledge of football as most have never heard of Portsmouth FC Basketball Club, if they see the hook, they would assume that it is Portsmouth F.C.. Also, football games almost always never end with a more than double-digit score--Hallows AG (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I just realized that the hook simply shows "Portsmouth FC", making it a sort of easter egg. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that a tick? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. I'll OK it if someone addresses the lack of citations mentioned above – not sure if this has been done. Copyediting and wikification would be desirable, but not essential for DYK (am I right?). — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting is necessary if the grammar is poor and disjointed (I do it for several regular nominators when I review their submissions), but it does not have to be FA quality prose, so no quibbling commas and whatnot. The article as is looks wikified enough for DYK. I agree that it needs citations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Referencing still not up to par after 8 days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)