Template:Did you know nominations/Hyperconsumerism

 The following is an archived discussion of Hyperconsumerism's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

Hyperconsumerism

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that hyperconsumerism refers to consuming goods for non-functional purposes?

• Reviewed: Resesi

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nom at 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article appears to meet all the requirements. I am surprised that Wikipedia did not have an article about this before. Are you sure that you cannot come up with a better hook, though? The article seems to be full of much more fascinating facts. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Could have been better if the inner details were hidden from the hook so as to create a suspense and eagerness. The article is good, good to be in DYK, provided the hook was better. Change it in such a way that it creates a vague image of the market-social relationships. bc-ndra (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you mean, but anyone is welcome to propose a better hook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to the hook issue, there is a ref that's a bare URL, which will need to be fixed. Maybe the hook could add the Lunning quote at the end for a bit more punch? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. ALT1 below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that hyperconsumerism, "a consumerism for the sake of consuming", refers to consuming goods for non-functional purposes?

Yes, that does sound more punchy. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to approve it, then? It needs to be checked and given an approval tick, if appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not realise that was necessary. Here it is. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)