Template:Did you know nominations/Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages

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: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 22:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages[edit]

(

)

... that the original idea for the 1996 science fiction adventure game Drowned God was based on a forged document purported to have been written by 19th century English poet Richard Henry Horne?

Reviewed:Ruth Sawtell Wallis

Created/expanded by Torchiest (talk). Self nom at 03:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Expansion between June 8 revision and current version is 4.7 or 4.8. I don't think it counts as 5X expansion, unless WP:DYKSG or the main rules at WP:DYK could have said, otherwise. Nevertheless, it's not too late yet; you can still expand it into fivefold before 23:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC). --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How did you make that calculation? I used the DYK check script on the two versions in that diff you linked, and it counted 9516 characters after my last revision, and 1830 for this revision, which looks like 5.2 exactly. The prose size script says 1595 and 304 for the newest and June 8 revisions, respectively, a ~5.25 expansion. Am I calculating incorrectly? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Under either WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG, I don't count the reference brackets (e.g. "[3]"). I only count the prose without them. Also, I used plain ol' notepad and calculator to give me calculations rather than a script that I don't know how to use and don't have. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded the article further, giving 10191/1830 = 5.57 by character count, and 1716/304 = 5.64 by word count, according to my math. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't calculate incorrectly. You were right; I must have missed parts. Because of that, you have expanded based on my review that I stroke out. I apologize for all of this, so I don't know what to say. --George Ho (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the "stub" template and upgraded the article classification to Start (though it may deserve "C"; I'm not familiar with the requirements for that particular WikiProject). The "Gameplay" section will require sourcing before this DYK nomination can be approved by the person who reviews it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a reference to that section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Still needs a reviewer! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More than fivefold expansion by word count from the June 8 revision. No major problems with the article, and the hook meets length requirements and a well-known RS is used to back its claim-- クラウド６６８ 13:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)