- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Lords of the Earth
5x expanded by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC).
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
@Airborne84: Unfortunately, I do not think the nomination can be approved at this time. It looks as if the majority of the expanded content is copied with attribution from the Wikipedia article for Heroic Fantasy. This is not a plagiarism problem, as you have appropriately attributed the content. However, the Did You Know program seeks to promote pages that have new content. Per the footnote on 1b of Eligibility criteria, copied text is acceptable if it "does not exceed one-sixth of the total prosesize of the added content". In this case, the copied material seems to be the majority of the added content, looking at the page history. I realize this may be disappointing to learn when this is your very second DYK nomination, but I hope this helps clarify how to expand pages for DYK nominations in the future. It would take additional work to make the page eligible for Did You Know, as the length of the page excluding the copied content is 2,974 characters compared to its 1,247 character length prior to Airborne beginning expansion work on the page on December 11. The target length would be 6,235 uncopied characters, so with the new content, the page is a bit less than half as long as a 5x expansion would be, which is why I have marked this as needing "considerable work". If you still wish to pursue nomination at this time, perhaps the Play-by-mail genre could be removed or at least shortened (I don't think it really adds to the page; a paragraph describing how play-by-mail games are played by mail, and how Lords iterates on that by being played by email, seems like it'd be sufficient), and could the listed but unused articles written by Ben Lynch for Flagship magazine be used to fill out the details of what gameplay is like? Thank you for trying out DYK, and I hope you continue to participate despite this setback for this particular nomination. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Greatly appreciate the review Hydrangeans. I wasn't aware of the original content criterion. That's too bad. The material is appropriate to provide context for the article, but it seems it becomes a problem for DYK. Unfortunately, the original article was quite a bit of unsourced material, so it makes a 5x expansion challenging. I will look at the material in the unused articles to see if it's worthwhile expanding further. If no action on this by me by 25 December 2023, I have no issue with an admin closing the nomination. Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, if you think that the material is important for context in the article, I might disagree but you're free to leave it in, and I wouldn't count it against the nomination. It just doesn't count toward the 5x expansion. Best wishes as you look at the material; I hope it works out and that you're able to expand the page. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Airborne84: If you still wish to see this article on DYK, one possible option would be to nominate the article for GA status, then nominate the article for DYK once it's been promoted. A newly-promoted GA counts as a possible DYK candidate regardless of how much of the article is based on other sources, so you don't need to be worried about the copying if you wish to pursue that path. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hydrangeans you're right in that the context isn't essential for a DYK nomination, but it aligns with Featured Article criterion 1.b. "plac[ing] the subject in context". I wasn't suggesting it count here though—only that I would prefer to leave it for readers while expanding the other material to 5x. Narutolovehinata5, that is a good suggestion, thank you. The article needs some more work to get to GA, but probably about the same amount as the other option. I'll chew on it for a couple of days. Appreciate the comments! Airborne84 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Airborne84 Best wishes with this. Also, I'm sorry for my previous comment saying this was your "second" DYK when in reality you've been doing DYK for a long time and have had numerous successful nominations. Not sure where I got that false impression from. Maybe I got mixed up from reading a different nomination on the same day. Anyhow, cheers! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Airborne84: what are your thoughts on this? If you're planning a 5x, I'll leave this open, which gives you a little bit of a head start on the prose (you can use what's already there). If you're planning a run for GA or a withdrawal, though, I think it's best we close this, with no prejudice against a renomination once the article has achieved GA status. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, please close the nomination. I'll run it later after a GA nom. May take a while. Thanks!
Airborne84 (
talk) 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- n
@Airborne84: Unfortunately, I do not think the nomination can be approved at this time. It looks as if the majority of the expanded content is copied with attribution from the Wikipedia article for Heroic Fantasy. This is not a plagiarism problem, as you have appropriately attributed the content. However, the Did You Know program seeks to promote pages that have new content. Per the footnote on 1b of Eligibility criteria, copied text is acceptable if it "does not exceed one-sixth of the total prosesize of the added content". In this case, the copied material seems to be the majority of the added content, looking at the page history. I realize this may be disappointing to learn