Template:Did you know nominations/We Bare Bears


 * 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 Allen3 talk 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We Bare Bears

 * ... that the upcoming American animated television series We Bare Bears made its world premiere in the Netherlands?
 * ALT1:... that before airing in the United States, We Bare Bears won the "Young Amsterdam Audience" award after screening in the Netherlands?
 * Reviewed: Vild-Svinet
 * Comment: Article is only 165 bytes away from 5x expansion status, show some holiday spirit ;)

5x expanded by 23W (talk). Self nominated at 09:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Comments:  The hooks are interesting enough, I suppose.  They are clearly sited to Dutch language sites, but seem reliable enough.  QPQ done. No image to review.  Article is currently 2456 characters. At time of the start of expansion it was 513 characters of prose. For 5x expansion, requirement is is 2465. Why skimp on the additional 109 characters of text to get it over the 5x expansion requirement?  There seems ample available information for the article to be brought up to required length for a DYK.  Even better, finish the article, then promote it to GA status, then resubmit for DYK.  There are also concerns for close paraphrasing, as the entire Plot section is closely paraphrased from here.  (I looked, because the use of the word "gauche" felt...well...awkward).  I am too inexperienced reviewing DYK to bend any rules and make the final call, so will defer further comments and leave this for a more experienced reviewer. Gaff (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to nominate it for Good Article status since it hasn't premiered yet. And, I don't know, the plot seems distant enough to the source material for me; dupdet gives only false positives. Will DYK seriously not forgive a ~4.7x expansion? C'mon... 23W 01:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know the rules on bending the rules. You could always find a little more info now, to bulk it up, then hopefully the next reviewer will pass it.  Since it has not yet aired in the US, ALT1 doesn't really work.  You'll probably be able to get this through, just be patient...   Gaff (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, that plot section is a bit too close to the source. DupDet only catches exact matches, but the wording doesn't have to be exactly the same to be problematic - see WP:Close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Sorry for the radio silence. I plan on rewriting and expanding further soon. 23W 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've retinkered the plot section and expanded both the production and broadcast sections slightly. As I expanded it from this revision (569 characters) to the current revision (2659 characters; ~5.2x expansion), it should be eligible now.
 * Sorry for not doing so in the first place. I wanted to get it in before things got busy. 23W 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked about the timeline at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know and was given a green-light. It looks like the closeparaphrasing has been addressed as well. So article is adequately expanded. Hooks are sourced from foreign language sites, as I noted above in the initial review. Gaff (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to complete the review. Close paraphrasing appears to have been dealt with, and the article meets the 5x expansion requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Article failed 5x expansion requirement at the time it was nominated to DYK on December 22.  It was then not really expanded until January 17th.  So it was never expanded 5x for the initial nom.  Shouldn't the requirement restart after the initial expired?  In other words, doesn't need 5x expansion from when the current work started (Jan 17th)? Or are we allowed to propose a DYK, which clearly is not meeting criteria, then sit around for a few weeks before actually doing any work?  Why even have rules for DYK? I'm still too new to DYK to understand "the rules" Gaff (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I'm bending the rules with this nomination, but I'm not following your logic. Are you saying that I would have to expand the article fivefold every week in the time between someone finding a problem with it and me responding to those problems? 23W 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, so will be interested to see how it goes. I'm going to watch from the sidelines.  Good luck! Gaff (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks for reviewing and checking it out on the talk page! 23W 05:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)