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 SL93 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
... that the NCAAvacated the first Division I national championship won by an HBCU in any sport? Source: "The sharpest blow of all, in fact, had come the previous January, when the NCAA had stripped Howard of its 1971 national soccer championship and placed the program on probation for the '73 season for having used four ineligible players. The title had been the first Division I championship in any sport ever won by a predominantly black college" -- Sports Illustrated
Overall: Thank you, Alyo for this article about a heroic and brave sports team. There is nothing wrong with the article, and there is nothing technically wrong with the hook. However, because this subject matter is of interest beyond the limits of sport environment and jargon, I think it might be worth re-wording the hook so that anyone interested in the history of mid-20th century civil rights can immediately understand (without checking the links) what it is about. Please could you do this for us? I hope you can, but if you do not wish to, then I shall pass the DYK without a new hook. Storye book (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, thanks for the review. I completely agree: the issue I've had is staying within the character limit while phrasing things appropriately in wiki-voice given all the nuance. E.g., would the hook "...that the first HBCU to win a Division I championship argued the NCAA investigated and vacated the title because the team was made up of Black students from Africa and the Caribbean?" suggest too strong a causal link between the NCAA itself and the students being Black? Do I need to only connect the team's racial makeup to the anonymous tip? Alternatively I thought about "...that sports historians believe the NCAA was told to investigate the first HBCU to win a Division I national title because the team was made up of students from Africa and the Caribbean?" (possibly too long/wordy) and "...that the NCAA took away the first Division I national title won by an HBCU after an anonymous tip about the team's international players?" (simplest, but doesn't imply as much of the civil rights angle). Sorry to dump three hooks on you, but another set of eyes on this would be much appreciated because I've seen these words too many times. Alyo(chat·edits) 18:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes, Alyo, I see the problem. But I agree with you that putting it in with the Black History Month section would actually solve the problem - because the Black History environment would help the readers realise that your original Howard Bison hook is making the same point. So I would say, if we can be sure that the Howard Bison hooks are going to be presented among the Black History hooks, that should fix it. So would you like me to pass this for DYK with your original hook ALT0 above (which I agree is more punchy than the ones you put in bold), and ask the promoter to make sure that it gets published alongside the Black History Month section hooks? Storye book (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, thanks! Alyo(chat·edits) 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Alyo. This nomination is good to go, with ALT0. To promoter: please would you kindly ensure that this hook is put in the Black History Month section, and that the hook is published alongside the Black History hooks? This is because, although the hook and article of this nomination are placed centrally in that theme, the hook is not immediately obviously a Black History hook. But that is where it belongs, and where it will get properly noticed. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, SL93. Since we've had no replies as yet to the above suggestions for alternative hooks, I am green-ticking this nom as promised. I agree with Alyo that it would probably not be possible to make the civil rights aspect of the hook clear without writing longish and awkward hooks (although I should say that the above suggestions, at 181, 185 and 137 characters respectively, are well within the 200 char. limit). Now that the nom has been put into the Black History Month holding area, I am hoping that, on publication, readers now pick up the implications, while the hook retains dignity.
Good to go with ALT0. Storye book (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Alyo for this article about a heroic and brave sports team. There is nothing wrong with the article, and there is nothing technically wrong with the hook. However, because this subject matter is of interest beyond the limits of sport environment and jargon, I think it might be worth re-wording the hook so that anyone interested in the history of mid-20th century civil rights can immediately understand (without checking the links) what it is about. Please could you do this for us? I hope you can, but if you do not wish to, then I shall pass the DYK without a new hook. Storye book (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Alyo. This nomination is good to go, with ALT0. To promoter: please would you kindly ensure that this hook is put in the Black History Month section, and that the hook is published alongside the Black History hooks? This is because, although the hook and article of this nomination are placed centrally in that theme, the hook is not immediately obviously a Black History hook. But that is where it belongs, and where it will get properly noticed. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)