Talk:Designasaurus

A fact from Designasaurus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the educational computer games Designasaurus and UMS 1 together gained their publisher more than $5 million during 18 months in the 1980s?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Designasaurus.

Wikipedia

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (0 participants)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (3 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the educational computer games Designasaurus and UMS 1 together gained their publisher over $5 million during 18 months in the 1980s?
- Reviewed: QPQ 1 of 2 from this nomination

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - See below
Overall: Expanded on Jan 22–23 and expanded from 657 B to 3361 B (5.12× expansion). Hook is interesting and cited inline with Ref. 10 in the article. Earwig looks good. The article had a template at the bottom that noted it was a stub but I have removed that as it has been assessed Start-class. My only question is about the QPQ - it is my understanding that a hook with two bolded articles requires two QPQs, which would mean that both of the reviews linked at that nomination would have been used. If I am misunderstanding something, feel free to correct me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS I'm very confused. I reviewed two articles at Template:Did you know nominations/Pero Pirker and I used one of them for a QPQ here and the second one at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Sylvester, Schwabing. It is no different then when I reviewed three articles at Template:Did you know nominations/1970 Westminster Titans football team and was allowed to use each article that I reviewed as a QPQ. You never edited the article and I just now removed the stub template. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93

I'm very sorry, it seems I screwed everything up here. For some reason, I didn't read the QPQ link carefully enough and was operating under the misguided assumption that you were the nominator instead of the reviewer. I also meant to edit out the stub template and honestly totally forgot. Again I'm sorry for the confusion, we're good to go here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Thanks for the review. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P5