Template:Did you know nominations/That

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 Schwede66 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That

(

)

... that?
- ALT1: ... þæt?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/MicroMacro: Crime City
Comment: DYK check says no 5x expansion; the previous version is 1063 characters and the nominated one is 5375, which should be enough (5x would be 5315, no? if I made a mistake I can expand more over the next couple days). If this type of hook isn't acceptable I will probably withdraw this, just let me know...

5x expanded by Urve (talk). Self-nominated at 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

Just a drive-by comment and not a review, but that is a brilliant hook. Love it! Schwede 66 17:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now, if only I could tell you how difficult the article was to write. Take a google scholar search for that... :) Urve (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  - That is a serious case of scholarly work! Now that I’ve read your article I can easily say that. Would not have been easy to write. BTW, the "See also" section goes above the "References" section. Schwede 66 07:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    - Thanks and thanks! Urve (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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:
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Urve: I just had to review this one because its such a creative and a bit wacky of a hook idea, and I totally agree with Schwede66 that it is really good. I was talking with my friend and then just thought, screw it, I have to give it a shot. Assuming good faith on the offline sources cited within the article proper with no discernible issues, of proper length and submission date. The sole major concern I have is that the hook isn't cited, which is difficult when the hook is a single word in itself, and thus would be nearly impossible to cite. Apart from that I think it should be totally set. I'm a bit of a new reviewer so I can't really say for sure if there's a policy which addresses this in special circumstances, which is why I want to get a second opinion on this. Perhaps @Theleekycauldron: can give it a glance if they're able to? Ornithoptera (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am but biased and blinded by the glory of this wonderful hook :) in all seriousness, it should be excellent and I absolutely cannot wait for its run. I'll have to let someone else promote since I'm going to formally sign off on this thing, though. Also, I'm going to third Schwede66's congrats on writing this because that absolutely cannot have been easy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

To Prep4