Template:Did you know nominations/Energy in Africa
- 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 00:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient recent expansion
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Energy in Africa[edit]
- ... that we have readily-available energy to sustain the future of our planet in an area where energy availability is considered scarce (UNECA 2012)?
- Reviewed Twilight Zone tragedy
Created/expanded by CarolineABrigham (talk). Self nominated at 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC).
- Note: this user made no edits to the Twilight Zone nomination, but, as this appears to be their first nomination, the user is exempt from the review requirement. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This is still pretty much a draft, with an {{under construction}} template, empty sections, and plenty of unreferenced paragraphs. More concerning, several artefacts in the draft which I removed hint at the possibility that this is the work of an university student, or based on such work, and based on an essay by Prof Akin Iwayemi, Energy Sector Development in Africa. Not surprising then that the text is too close to the original, so much so that it needs a complete rewrite. And to answer the question in the artefacts, no, graphics from this essay may not be used on Wikipedia because the essay does not state that it is under some sort of open license, and we thus have to presume that it is under copyright. --Pgallert (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The article contained, before expansion began on October 21, 16,511 prose characters. As of today, it has 18,408 prose characters, an increase of 1,897 characters in just under three weeks. As the increase needed is 66,044, it is clear that this article has no hope whatever of meeting the 5x expansion requirement. Given the other major issues, including the overly close paraphrasing noted above (including a 28-word copyvio), it's time to close the nomination as failing to meet DYK requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
