Template:Did you know nominations/Designasaurus
- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Designasaurus
- ... 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).
| 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 |
|---|
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- SL93
