Template:Did you know nominations/The Iraq War: A Historiography of Wikipedia Changelogs
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The Iraq War: A Historiography of Wikipedia Changelogs
[edit]
... that a 7000-page compendium exists in book form showing all edits made between December 2004 and November 2009 to the Wikipedia article for the Iraq War?- ... that The Iraq War: A Historiography of Wikipedia Changelogs consists of 7000 pages of Wikipedia changelogs?
Created/expanded by Bluerasberry (talk). Self nom at 17:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Don Eaddy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently this article has 845 B of prose, well below the required 1500. Chris857 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)- Agree that it's too short. I'm fascinated though - what was the motivation of the author? There must be lots to write about this. My alt hook: Secretlondon (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that The Iraq War: A Historiography of Wikipedia Changelogs consists of 700 pages of Wikipedia changelogs?
- I changed the hook to your proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've got it up to 1100 characters but I'm struggling. All the coverage is trivial - the technology blogs of news media. Is there enough here to write 1500 characters? Secretlondon (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a work of art and interpretations and reviews of it are significant when they are reported from reliable sources. I added more and I put it through a character counter to get 1700. Thanks for your contribution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry it's still only 1367 chars according to DYK check. Secretlondon (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I added more! Surely now there is enough. I tried to set up DYK check for myself but I could not get it to work and want to play with it more another time. I copied the text to a character counting tool. 64.17.247.50 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I found more sources still. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's long enough now - 1707 characters. It needs to lose the stub tag, there's probably other stuff too. Secretlondon (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I found more sources still. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I added more! Surely now there is enough. I tried to set up DYK check for myself but I could not get it to work and want to play with it more another time. I copied the text to a character counting tool. 64.17.247.50 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry it's still only 1367 chars according to DYK check. Secretlondon (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a work of art and interpretations and reviews of it are significant when they are reported from reliable sources. I added more and I put it through a character counter to get 1700. Thanks for your contribution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Good to go (however I wrote a little bit of it - does someone else need to sign off?) Secretlondon (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Normally, yes, especially as you also came up with the hook. However, it's being double-checked as part of the promotion, so it works out this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
