Talk:Time-resolved spectroscopy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Miscellanea[edit]

"Temporally-resolved spectroscopy" should redirect here. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Done. Han-Kwang (t) 10:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 reviewer, closed by BlueMoonset talk 00:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated article doesn't come close to qualifying for DYK, and doesn't even have a proposed hook; closing as unsuccessful

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that
- Reviewed:

Created by Mr6966 (talk). Nominated by Lv9454 (talk) at 13:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Time-resolved spectroscopy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. General eligibility:[reply]

New enough: - No, it has not been expanded, created, or improved to GA status.
Long enough: - The article is long enough, but has not been expanded enough.

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - There is no hook to speak of.
Interesting:

QPQ:

Overall:

@Mr6966 and Lv9454: Welcome to DYK. Unfortunately, the article does not meet the newness criterion as it hasn't been created, expanded five times, or improved to Good Article status over the past five days. Previously, this article had 7356 characters (1075 words) of "readable prose size"; it is currently 8974 characters (1309 words) "readable prose size". You would need approximately 37,000 characters of prose, or 28,000 more characters than what you currently have. I know this can be disheartening, so I can recommend improving this page to Good Article status in accordance with the Good Article criteria. In the meantime, please read the DYK rules to familiarize yourself with the eligibility criteria for DYK submissions. Epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]