Talk:Let's Go Karaoke!

A fact from Let's Go Karaoke! appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after a publisher declined the manga series Let's Go Karaoke!, it sold out multiple times after being self-published?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Let's Go Karaoke!.

Wikipedia

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that after a publisher declined the manga series Let's Go Karaoke!, it sold out multiple times as a self-published manga, and was ultimately picked up for publication as a book by a different publisher? Source: Comic Natalie
- Reviewed: New Pony

Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - The article cited is detailed and interesting, however it did not seem to directly state that the writer was originally "rejected" by the publisher. Do let me know if I've missed out on this.
Interesting:

QPQ: - QPQ not done
Overall: Hook is generally interesting! Would it be possible or iconic enough to replace the name of the actual publisher instead of having it just as "another publisher"? Moonchildkyu — Preceding comment added by Moonchildkyu (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonchildkyu: Rephrased the hook and added QPQ. I don't think the publisher of the book (Kadokawa Future Publishing) is especially relevant to a general audience, so I would err on the side of not naming it. Morgan695 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will approve this ~~per the review above~~ and the hook being rephrased. I agree that the publisher name isn't needed. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did a complete review myself once I saw that the reviewer is a new editor. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]