- 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 Jack Frost (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Zork
Improved to Good Article status by PresN (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 09:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
@LordPeterII: Good article. Hook is interesting, article is sourced, and the QPQ is done. Approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke: Thanks for the review! I've thought about it a bit, and I would like to adjust the hook slightly, because Barton is a professor of English, not history. I believe calling him a "scholar" would be a more appropriate generic term, or "scientist" (I'm not sure which one would sound more natural in English).
- ALT1: ... that one scholar compared the importance of Zork to that of Homer's Iliad?
- ALT2: ... that one scientist compared the importance of Zork to that of Homer's Iliad?
- Would you also approve ALT1 or ALT2? Then the promoter can chose which term they prefer. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sure i'll approve both of those. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks; I struck the original one. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: Good article. Hook is interesting, article is sourced, and the QPQ is done.