Template:Did you know nominations/Forte Tenors

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 PFHLai (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Forte Tenors

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Forte Tenors met in person only two days before their audition for America's Got Talent—their first performance together—then were required to audition again after the show's rules forced a personnel change?

• Reviewed: Boston Hymn

Improved to Good Article status by ATinySliver (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

• Passed at Gan and nominated on DYK on 9 October.
• Hook is sourced and cited.
• QPQ done
• Article exceeds required length.
• Only thing is, the length of the hook makes it boring for me, it's too longwinded. I think the final clause could be removed altogether, it's kind of irrelevant that they had to audition again here. It would be more snappy and interesting just to say that they inly met in person 3 days prior to their first performance together.
•  — Calvin999 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but if that's what it takes to pass, try:

• ALT1: ... that Forte Tenors met in person only two days before their audition for America's Got Talent—their first-ever performance together?

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is better. You want hooks to be short and snappy and to the point, or else it loses the attention of the reader. You could probably even do without the "their first-ever performance together" too, as the previous clause is indicative of this, but I won't push you on removing that too. By the time I had read the original, I was losing interest because of its length, and I didn't see how the last part was even relevant.

Good to go with ALT1  — Calvin999 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If nothing else, you led me to further strengthen the paragraph on which the clause was based ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)