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) 21:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Created by Tayi Arajakate (talk). Self-nominated at 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC).
Will pick this review up in the morning. In the meantime, can you have a look at the first hook to see if it the stat is Global or Indian? My suspicion is it is the latter, please check. Ktin (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be neither, but rather a mistake I made by assuming "conservation show" to mean the same as a "wildlife documentary". I've fixed the sentence in the article and in the hook. Tayi ArajakateTalk 13:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Overall: Article meets DYK eligibility criteria (i.e. newness, length). Stylized with a neutral POV and is adequately sourced. No copyvio issues. Was there a QPQ completed? Notes on the hook can be read below. No QPQ required since this is the nominator's second nomination per QPQ check. Approving ALT1 for use in DYK. Nicely done. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hook notes: Source for original hook says Born Wild, the show she scripts, directs and presents, is the only conservation show to have had a ten-year run on a news channel. However, it does not say if it is on an Indian news channel or is this record a global one. Global seems less plausible. CBC seems to have a show that ran for a longer period, and similarly on PBS. But, if the definition of a "conservation" show is narrow or if the "news network" bit makes it narrow -- perhaps there is a chance. But, I would like to revalidate that with a different source before approving the hook. Alternately, consider changing it to "...Indian news network". Hook 2 is validated as-is by the source, and is quoted in the article. In minor feedback -- consider adding a descriptor to the article name in the hook. e.g. that environmental journalist Swati Thiyagarajan ... or something similar. Ktin (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
It's likely both of them which is narrowing it down. PBS and CBC would both be news networks though, but it will dis-include series such as those on National Geographic. There are some different sources on this which use more or less the same wording including "news channel" and "conservation show".
I have otherwise added the descriptor to the hooks. Tayi ArajakateTalk 21:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 looks good and ready to go. Regarding ALT0 / original hook. I just am not convinced. My sense is that it was written up in a bio of some form that ended up getting repurposed everywhere. E.g. [1][2][3][4]. I would be much more comfortable adding the phrase "Indian television news network" and calling it good. Let me know.
That might be possible as well considering that all the sentences do appear to be near copies, so I'd rather go with ALT1 instead since if that is the case then ALT0 wouldn't be well cited either way. Tayi ArajakateTalk 21:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. I will go ahead and approve ALT1. That said, I think the text in ALT0 is good to use in the article with the qualifier "Indian television news channel" added. Ktin (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I've retained it in the article, although I did something else with it. I changed the wording to reflect that it's a claim. Tayi ArajakateTalk 07:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Article meets DYK eligibility criteria (i.e. newness, length). Stylized with a neutral POV and is adequately sourced. No copyvio issues.