Template:Did you know nominations/Reverie Sound Revue

Reverie Sound Revue

 * ... that Canadian indie rock band Reverie Sound Revue went on a "blog tour", wherein they released videos of band members playing live online?
 * ALT1:... that both of Canadian indie rock band Reverie Sound Revue releases have been eponymous?
 * Reviewed: Rowenna Davis

5x expanded by What a pro. (talk). Self nom at 07:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Symbol delete vote.svg Article does not pass five fold expansion test. Article expanded on February 5.  As of January 30, article was 538 B (93 words).  As of February 5 after expansion, article was 2733 B (450 words).  The bytes is over the line but just barely and I think only because the counting tool is counting pre-existing prose that was not counted the first time.  The words is not.  The DYK expanding tool tells me it was not expanded five fold.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Hook is properly formatted. Article is supported by inline citations. Nominator has reviewed other DYK. No images for copyright issues. Plagiarism check: here, here, here, here, here, here, here. No major concerns.  Hook is supported by sources in the text.

Article has not been expanded five fold as I understand it. If some one wants to ignore all rules and move to prep, that is their prerogative as the article is close in some ways and otherwise meets all the criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the bytes you're referring to are actually the characters of prose, which in my opinion matter more than the number of words. Also, the article could possibly qualify for a 2x expanded BLP. What a pro (talk) is on fire.  08:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a completely uncited WP:BLP, it could be given a go. (I thought WP:BLP specifically applied to individuals, not groups of people.)  My inclination is to give a Symbol confirmed.svg to go, but leaving it up to the people who move things to the prep area to decide. --LauraHale (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This version (here) was close to 800 characters, which is why the tool is saying it wasn't a 5x expansion. I wouldn't call it a 2x BLP as the FFWD Article and official website in the old article could be construed as sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg IAR or no? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg the article has not been expanded 5 fold, it is not something that can be fixed. There is no gray area here.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As it happens, the article is at 5x now, according to DYKcheck. I've made several edits to the article, and I think everything checks out, but someone else should review it. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg am very confused. Isn't it supposed to have been 5x as of the date that it was placed under on this page?  If the expansion continued after it became an "older nomination" doesn't that make it too old for DYK? Or am I being too literal?--Ishtar456 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I see: An expansion began on Feb. 5 and it was a 5x when compared to the last edit (Jan.30). However, as Crisco pointed out, back in September that article was larger.  It was not 5x on the 5th, if that fact is taken into consideration. And there were no other edits between the 5th and the day that this nom became "older".  Personally, I do not think it qualifies as a BLP, so I think the 2x rule is out. But, just so you know, it had no citations prior to Feb.5. NOW, if the nom made an honest mistake in the size of the expansion and it was not pointed out until after it became old, I guess I could see accepting the edits that were done on March 4 as contributing to the expansion thus making it a 5x, because they occurred after Cisco's remark. Otherwise, I think the discussion should close. Second opinion requested.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To clear things up: I expanded the article 5x compared to the last edit. When I used DYKCheck to see if it was applicable, it said that the article had not been expanded 5x. I assumed this was an error until Crisco 1492 pointed out the longer version. Orlady then expanded the article further, and now it is 5x the longer version. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire.  12:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it, this was effectively a 5x expansion on Feb. 5, but didn't measure up due to some technicalities. I didn't really expand it; I just cleaned it up. My "additions" were pretty trivial, consisting of: (1) reinserting a bit of information that had been in one of the old versions of the article that was larger than the pre-January 30 version (but was unsourced), (2) listing the Canadian cities where band members lived in 2004, (3) adding a few introductory words in front of the list of band members so the footnote for the list would not be left floating in space, and (4) adding a sentence to the History section to tell about the band's founding (repeating information that had been in the lead but not in the article body). I also reworded a couple of places where the article didn't make sense to me, which had the effect of adding to the prose length, but I also deleted a little bit of text elsewhere in the article. --Orlady (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Second opinion requested on the discussion of length that began with Cisco's comment on 3/3.--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I say we should put this on the front page, and that seems to be the general leaning of experienced editors above (based on LauraHale's tick, Orlady's re-review request, and Crisco's question mark instead of a cross). The nominator may have been mistaken, but I think this can be overlooked. Moswento (talk &#124; contribs) 14:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)