Template:Did you know nominations/The Castle Doctrine
- The following discussion 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 v/r - TP 07:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Castle Doctrine
[edit]- ... that the 2014 strategy video game The Castle Doctrine was created in part as an "artistic statement" on gun rights?
Created by Tezero (talk), Samwalton9 (talk). Nominated by Samwalton9 (talk) at 12:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
- ALT1 ... that Russ Pitts, an editor at Polygon, described The Castle Doctrine as the most disturbing video game he'd ever played?
- The original hook is a bit weak, "partially as an artistic statement" doesn't seem to say much, and gun rights aren't the primary concern of the game (as opposed to something like Molleindustria's The Best Amendment. The alt hook makes a stronger statement. The statement is sourced to Pitt's twitter rather than his review at Polygon, but should count as a reliable self published source. - hahnchen 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that alt, struggled to find one I liked originally. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- The original hook is a bit weak, "partially as an artistic statement" doesn't seem to say much, and gun rights aren't the primary concern of the game (as opposed to something like Molleindustria's The Best Amendment. The alt hook makes a stronger statement. The statement is sourced to Pitt's twitter rather than his review at Polygon, but should count as a reliable self published source. - hahnchen 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
New (Feb. 4), long enough, within policy, no copyvio in spotcheck, QPQ done. First hook doesn't have immediate refs in article (see 3b). Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔ 04:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- The original hook or alt? Samwalton9 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- By "first hook", I mean the main one—sorry, could have been clearer. 3b says that each item referenced in the hook should have a footnote after its sentence in the article, so you'd just have to distribute the references to the individual sentences. czar ♔ 14:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, I've cited that statement directly; the source was just at the end of the paragraph. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I added the refs myself just because it was easy enough. You can see in the history.
either hook, gtg czar ♔ 17:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I added the refs myself just because it was easy enough. You can see in the history.
- No worries, I've cited that statement directly; the source was just at the end of the paragraph. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- By "first hook", I mean the main one—sorry, could have been clearer. 3b says that each item referenced in the hook should have a footnote after its sentence in the article, so you'd just have to distribute the references to the individual sentences. czar ♔ 14:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- The original hook or alt? Samwalton9 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
