Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/AWE"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Call me Lucy
(nominating AWE at DYK)
imported>DoctorKubla
Line 21: Line 21:
 
-->
 
-->
  
:* <!--Write first comment here, by replacing this line-->
+
:[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] The "DYK check" tool says this article has gone from 2,476 characters to 10,617 characters, and therefore hasn't been 5x expanded. However, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awe&oldid=576491747 pre-expansion version] of the article contained a list of acronyms that shouldn't really count as readable prose, and didn't really belong in the article; without the acronyms, the character count comes to 2,103 (according to Microsoft Word), so the article as it stands can be considered a fivefold expansion. Now, as for the other criteria: The article is well-sourced and well-written (although the current events section needs some attention – ideally, it should summarize the arguments made by various authors rather than just instructing the reader to follow the links). Some spot checks didn't turn up any copyvio or close paraphrasing. First time nominator, so no QPQ is needed. Both hooks are accurate and cited in the article, but the original hook's a bit bland; I think ALT1 is more likely to draw people in. [[User:DoctorKubla|DoctorKubla]] ([[User talk:DoctorKubla|talk]]) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 12:05, 3 December 2013

Awe

  • ... that the emotion of awe could be evolutionarily adaptive?
  • ALT1:... that there is controversy over whether non-religious people can experience the emotion of awe?

5x expanded by Call me Lucy (talk). Self nominated at 04:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC).

16px The "DYK check" tool says this article has gone from 2,476 characters to 10,617 characters, and therefore hasn't been 5x expanded. However, the pre-expansion version of the article contained a list of acronyms that shouldn't really count as readable prose, and didn't really belong in the article; without the acronyms, the character count comes to 2,103 (according to Microsoft Word), so the article as it stands can be considered a fivefold expansion. Now, as for the other criteria: The article is well-sourced and well-written (although the current events section needs some attention – ideally, it should summarize the arguments made by various authors rather than just instructing the reader to follow the links). Some spot checks didn't turn up any copyvio or close paraphrasing. First time nominator, so no QPQ is needed. Both hooks are accurate and cited in the article, but the original hook's a bit bland; I think ALT1 is more likely to draw people in. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)