Template:Did you know nominations/Resident Evil 5
- 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 01:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Resident Evil 5[edit]
... that a scene from Resident Evil 5 that was incorrectly said to show a screaming white woman being dragged away by black men, was submitted to the British Board of Film Classification due to a complaint of racism?
- Reviewed: Mary Loveless
Improved to Good Article status by Freikorp (talk). Self nominated at 03:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC).
Before I do any checks, I think the hooks needs to be tightened and more concise. It doesn't quite flow as easily as it should. "that was incorrectly said to" is where there's an issue I think, because a video game doesn't say something in a written sense, it does it visually. How it is phrased at the moment, to me, sounds as though you are writing about a piece of written text. But the hook goes on to say it shows it. I think the use of "incorrect" is incorrect in this sense, too. — ₳aron 09:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: How about simplifying to:
- ALT1 ... that a scene from Resident Evil 5 was submitted to the British Board of Film Classification due to a complaint of racism? Freikorp (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that.. Every seems okay (interesting hook, QPQ is done) apart from the fact that articles improved to GA status need to have been expanded fivefold in the past seven days. On 17 February, the character count was 25,779; today on 25 February it is 26,240 characters. Despite all the editing during the improved to GA, it is only 70 words or so longer than 7 days ago. I'd like a second opinion from another editor but I'm pretty sure this means that the hook cannot be promoted because it hasn't been expanded fivefold. I think you would have had to expand it from 25,000 characters to over 125,000 characters. — ₳aron 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: The article does not have to be expanded fivefold if it has been promoted to GA. That would completely defeat the purpose of including those two separate categories for nomination. In order to meet be eligible for nomination, an article must either be new OR 5x expanded OR promoted to GA, note all of the above. Freikorp (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ah right okay thanks. I must have misinterpreted the rules. It must be anew thing for being able to nominate when improved to GA as it wasn't a while ago. — ₳aron 08:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ah right okay thanks. I must have misinterpreted the rules. It must be anew thing for being able to nominate when improved to GA as it wasn't a while ago. — ₳aron 08:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: The article does not have to be expanded fivefold if it has been promoted to GA. That would completely defeat the purpose of including those two separate categories for nomination. In order to meet be eligible for nomination, an article must either be new OR 5x expanded OR promoted to GA, note all of the above. Freikorp (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that.. Every seems okay (interesting hook, QPQ is done) apart from the fact that articles improved to GA status need to have been expanded fivefold in the past seven days. On 17 February, the character count was 25,779; today on 25 February it is 26,240 characters. Despite all the editing during the improved to GA, it is only 70 words or so longer than 7 days ago. I'd like a second opinion from another editor but I'm pretty sure this means that the hook cannot be promoted because it hasn't been expanded fivefold. I think you would have had to expand it from 25,000 characters to over 125,000 characters.
- @Calvin999: How about simplifying to:
