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 Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
... that the study of phonetics began 2,300 years ago with Pānini's description of voicing? Source: Kiparsky (1993) describes Pānini's theory of voicing, Caffrey (2017) says "Many linguistics experts credit a Sanskrit grammarian named Panini as the earliest proponent of phonetics."
Comment: I like the hook I've suggested, but I would gladly welcome suggestions for other hooks. It's a rather abstract topic, so it's somewhat difficult to come up with an interesting fact that uses the page name. For the current hook, it should be noted that Pānini described more than just voicing, but Kiparsky (1993) focused mostly on that and it makes the hook a bit hookier.
5x expanded by Wugapodes (talk). Self-nominated at 18:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC).
Overall: Great job with this article! You just are missing QPQ.Catrìona (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that socio-phonetics studies how pronunciation can signal membership in social groups, such as those defined by gender, sexuality, or race?
@Catrìona: I had reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Cerithideopsis scalariformis. I piped it so it probably didn't look like you were expecting, my apologies. Thank you for the hook suggestion, though I prefer my original proposal. The article doesn't talk about sociophonetics much (yet) so it's not referenced in the article technically, and I also plan to write that sociophonetics article soon so I'd rather save a sociophonetics hook for that. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Everything is in order but I'll withhold the check mark for the moment in case alternate hooks are suggested. Catrìona (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: BlueMoonset on their talk page rightly raised a problem with the current hook. I haven't come up with a much better hook, but am proposing a few alts that shuld more accurately reflect the sources.
ALT2: ... that the study of phonetics began as early as 2,600 years ago with Sanskrit grammarians like Pānini who around 350 BCE described how sounds are voiced?
ALT3: ... that the Sanskrit grammarian Pānini provided a phonetic theory of voicing around 350 BCE?
I'd also be interested in what @BlueMoonset: thinks of the two. Any preferences between the two? I like ALT2 slightly more, but want to make sure it fully addresses the issues they raised on the talk page before it's run. I'm not sure if it's 2600 or 2500 years since 6th century BCE, I really am not the best at arithmetic, so please correct that if I'm still off. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment. The article is good but I'm not convinced by the hooks, using any dating just looks a bit like historical OR, even when it is referenced, because there are always other refs saying different, and the socio-phonetics link is a little confusing. I think new hooks without dating would move this forward. Szzuk (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Szzuk: Do you have any particular source in mind? That phonetics began with Sanskrit grammarians is a claim made in a number of sources. Caffrey (2017) from the Salem Press Encyclopedia entry on phonetics says "Many linguistics experts credit a Sanskrit grammarian named Panini as the earliest proponent of phonetics", MacMahon (2013) in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics begins a chronological look at the history of phonetics saying the field "can be traced back to at least 500 bce, to the work of certain Sanskritic grammarians" and discusses Panini, calling him "the most famous" of Sanskrit grammarians. I think ALT3 is a good choice, besides being shorter it also side steps your concern, but the historical claim made in ALT2 represents a widely held viewpoint among scholars apparent from secondary and tertiary sources documenting the history of the field. Wugapodes[thɑk][ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Alt2 and Alt3 are ok, i'm not taking over this review though, the subject matter is outside my experience. Szzuk (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer needed for remaining ALT hooks, since Catrìona hasn't returned. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
-Article was expanded 5x on 23 August, nominated two days later; long enough (3944 words), neutral, fully-cited, and seemingly with no copyvios (Earwig is down for me atm, but a random google of different paragraphs reveals no major similarities except at mirror sites); Hook ALT3 (cleaner and neater) is well within character limit (88 chars), accurate, sourced, and surely of general interest. The nom's QPQ is done; no image. Continuez. ——SerialNumber54129 11:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Great job with this article! 
Reviewer needed for remaining ALT hooks, since Catrìona hasn't returned. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
-Article was expanded 5x on 23 August, nominated two days later; long enough (3944 words), neutral, fully-cited, and seemingly with no copyvios (Earwig is down for me atm, but a random google of different paragraphs reveals no major similarities except at mirror sites); Hook ALT3 (cleaner and neater) is well within character limit (88 chars), accurate, sourced, and surely of general interest. The nom's QPQ is done; no image. Continuez. ——SerialNumber54129 11:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)