Template:Did you know nominations/Torment: Tides of Numenera
The following is an archived discussion of Torment: Tides of Numenera's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Torment: Tides of Numenera edit
- ... that the spiritual successor to the critically acclaimed computer RPG Planescape: Torment raised $1,000,000 within the first seven hours of its Kickstarter project launch, breaking the platform's record?
- ALT1:... that Torment: Tides of Numenera became the first video game project to raise $1,000,000 in under seven hours on the crowd funding platform Kickstarter?
- Comment: My very first nomination. Started the article on the 6th of March, but was only able to work on it after the 9th. Should still count as a fivefold expansion, though (from about 300 words to about 1500).
5x expanded by Illythr (talk), NateDan (talk). Nominated by Illythr (talk) at 19:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC).
Article created on the 6th, and the checker is claiming the article was a 5x expansion on the 8th. This would normally put it outside the nomination window of five days as you nominated it on the 14th. However, it is your first DYK nom and as you've slotted it into the 9th that was probably when you thought it was 5x nominated and so you tried to nominate it within the window. So we can ignore that rule for now. Some of the phrasing in the paragraphs is a bit strange and made me wonder if there was a copyright violation issue, but I've conducted spot checks and can't find anything that matches. Article is sufficiently cited (although outside of the DYK process you might want to tidy the references by having the date formats all match). Based on the WP:IAR aspect of the date of nomination, this one is good to go. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
