Template:Did you know nominations/Halo 5: Guardians

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Halo 5: Guardians

edit

Created by CR4ZE (talk). Self nominated at 06:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

  • New (16th), "within policy", no copyvio found via spotcheck (no tool), QPQ checker down, but this appears to be the nom's fourth and final DYK nom where the QPQ is unnecessary. (This said, the QPQ reviewed looks like it needs attention.) Hook is sourced and verified with an immediate ref in article. However, the article is not long enough (less than the 1500 character minimum). Please ping me if I don't respond. Starting tomorrow, I'll be gone for about a week. czar  01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Czar: 1,469 characters is basically there, but I'm quite sure I've exhausted the article with all the information at present. I'll look for more to add, but if I can't, could you let it slide by 30 characters? That's, like, four words. CR4ZE (tc) 06:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally, the 31 characters don't matter too much to me, but I'm not the only reviewer that approves this before it's published. 1,500 is a minimum for a reason, and I've seen articles rejected for being "too short" even when past the minimum. I'd try to expand, if at all possible czar  12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I got something together. Extra skerrick about needing to build a new engine for Xbone. 1,702 characters now. CR4ZE (tc) 14:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Also added an ALT1 that might be a little more interesting. (135 characters). CR4ZE (tc) 14:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Almost there, but the source doesn't confirm that the engine upgrade has anything to do with the 60 fps target. That's more of a prose issue—perhaps there's another source for that, or I'd otherwise just rephrase it. Also I removed the part about pushing the 360 to its limits unless you want to say the engine was pushed to its limits and thus necessitated a new one. czar  21:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks for picking that up. Done. CR4ZE (tc) 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
gtg czar  13:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)