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.
Comment: DYK No Rome was split into two DYKs (with George Daniel) so claiming QPQ for the second time on this one.Bogger (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Not a review, and I do my QPQs oldest first so would not get to this any time soon (but would not object to any other editor doing so in the meantime); our article for 'culchie' suggests that 'culchie' "usually has a pejorative meaning". Is there a reason it is being used in the hook?--Launchballer 10:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Overall: Article is new enough and long enough. Information is sourced and neutral. Earwig highlights quotations and names, so is plagiarism free. Hooks are cited. In terms of interest, I can see how if you're familiar with all the terms used in them, then they are interesting, however I'm not and if I found them a little difficult to discern, others might too. I wonder whether there's some re-wording to just help readers a little more? Lajmmoore (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bogger and Lajmoore: I'm not sure if I'm getting the context right, but maybe this works?
ALT2: ... that the Aisling novel series, based on a character archetype discussed in a Facebook group, was described by TheJournal.ie as a "publishing phenomenon"?
ALT3 ... that the Aisling novel series is based on a character archetype elaborated upon by users of a Facebook group?
ALT3 might require a rewording or clarification in the article, but I think there's potential in the "novel is based on a Facebook group" angle specifically, less so with the "publishing phenomenon" angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough. Information is sourced and neutral. Earwig highlights quotations and names, so is plagiarism free. Hooks are cited. In terms of interest, I can see how if you're familiar with all the terms used in them, then they are interesting, however I'm not and if I found them a little difficult to discern, others might too. I wonder whether there's some re-wording to just help readers a little more? Lajmmoore (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)