Template:Did you know nominations/Belfast's Big Two

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) 22:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Belfast's Big Two

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... ~~that a game between Belfast's Big Two once led to a cock and a blue pig being revealed on a football pitch?~~

Reviewed: 2001 Norwegian First Division

Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self nom at 18:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think you should change 'cock' to 'rooster' because I just feel as though it may be misinterpreted by some. Especially when you are talking about it being "revealed". Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not as if i'm leaving it unlinked where that misinterpretation could be made. That's the reason why I linked it, to stop people thinking it could mean something else. Also the word "cock" is also used as part of a nickname for Glentoran, "the cock and hens" which I was intending to tie in. If the word "revealed" is a problem, I'll change that.

Alt1... ~~that a game between Belfast's Big Two once led to a cock and a blue pig being released onto a football pitch?~~ The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hghyux that "cock" could be misinterpreted. Even wikilinking it isn't sufficient IMO to address the issue. I'd feel better with "cock (rooster)". And please also note that the past tense verb should be "led", not "lead". — Rich wales 22:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that if someone thinks it's making that misintepretation, they're looking to make that misinterpretation. In the context of the hook, I can't really see how the misintepretation could be made as using the word released instead of revealed I think would allay those concerns. But I'll create another ALt.

Alt2... that a game between Belfast's Big Two once led to a cockerel and a blue pig being released onto a football pitch? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This new Alt (let's call it Alt2 to distinguish it from Alt1) looks fine to me. Note, BTW, that cockerel is already a redirect to rooster, so the piping is not really necessary. As for whether a misinterpretation or double entendre could reasonably be expected to occur "in the context of the hook", I would only point out that DYK readers come from all backgrounds and should (IMO) be assumed to have no background at all on the subject of any given hook. For that matter, you might want to consider wikilinking football pitch, since this phrase will be meaningless to most American readers who are only vaguely familiar with the game they know as "soccer". — Rich wales 06:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this one is OK. Specifically:

Article is new enough (nominated right after creation).
Hasn't appeared in ITN (not that I would expect it to, since it's not about a current news story).
Long enough, not a stub, and not involved in any disputes.
Adequately and properly referenced. Hook fact confirmed via cited source.
No BLP issues. No evident signs of plagiarism.
Subject treated in a neutral fashion.
Hook (Alt2 version as revised by nominator) is properly formatted, short enough, neutral, and "hooky". My own comments leading to changes in the hook were not sufficient (IMO) to rule me out as a reviewer here.
No image, so image criteria are not applicable.

Good to go IMO. I'm relatively new to DYK reviewing, so a second opinion by a more experienced reviewer might be appropriate. — Rich wales 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)