Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto V (re-release)

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V (re-release)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that cars in Grand Theft Auto V's re-release feature functional speedometers?

• ALT1:... that new weapon animations were created to accommodate the first-person view in Grand Theft Auto V's re-release?
• Reviewed: Pido Dida... Sabay Tayo

Created by CR4ZE (talk). Self nominated at 10:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC).

• The article was moved to mainspace on December 15. I moved the nomination to the date accordingly. Don't worry; the nomination was on time. George Ho (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Both hooks check out though i prefer the alternative hook.Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Full review needed; this is not an adequate review. Please check against all the DYK criteria (they're listed above the edit form); the reviewing guide goes into more depth, and the rules and further-explained rules are available if you have questions. Newness, size, hook citations, article citations, close paraphrasing, neutrality, etc., all need to be checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith when i say it was all checked by me using the DYK tool and my own eyes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jason Rees, to the best of my knowledge, you are a new reviewer. In my experience, new reviewers tend to miss important details—it's not a lack of good faith, but lack of experience. We assume that, new or old reviewer, you have reviewed what you say you've reviewed—in this case, the hooks only. It is up to you to detail what you've checked and how the nomination did: please see T:TDYK#How to review a nomination for what is expected, which is not what you did, either initially or in your reply just now. I look forward to that detail below, as will the person who eventually comes along to promote this nomination to a prep slot. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am not a new reviewer but not an overly experienced one - in fact i hate reviewing other peoples articles, because it always seems to take ages. Now since you want to be really picky i reviewed the article lengths, i have no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, and im know that reliable sources appropriate to the subject are used.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, we're definitely not all the way with the review. I'd appreciate a second spot-check; BlueMoonset, since you're here, you could handle that. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since it doesn't look like anyone's taking the second spot-check, I'll take this one. The hook is interesting, verifiable, and of suitable length; though I personally prefer ALT1, I think the main hook will be much more interesting to a wider audience, so let's go with that one. QPQ is good. The article is neutral, meets the required length, and is sufficiently referenced. Article was moved to mainspace on 15 December 2014, within seven days of this nomination (DYK nominated on 18 December). So, with that:

We're good to go. Really nice work with this, CR4ZE, as per usual. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)}