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) 01:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Created by Ferox Seneca (talk). Self-nominated at 17:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC).
Why cite Mental Floss when The New York Times is available? Mental Floss is just regurgitating the NYTimes. This article appears to be very weak in citations to reliable sources when there is no lack of coverage.[1][2][3] Instead it relies too much on blogs. There are also possible reasons offered for why the Twitter accounts may have been block which the article fails to note.[4][5] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure which specific parts you think are not sufficiently sourced. Every line of the article is sourced. The "sources" section cited eleven separate articles at the time of submission. Most of the sources are reliable (like the Guardian, Japan Times, and the Washington Post, but other websites are used when they provide more details. None of the sources contradict each other, and often both more- and less- well-known media sites cite each other. In general, I chose to use articles that had the most detail, and I don't think that there is any reason to believe that any of the information in the article is not reliable or correct. For example, I wouldn't normally consider "Mondo Media" to be the most reliable source, but this New York Times article and this New York Times article both cite the website as an authority on the mascot and use its information, so I don't think there is a reason not to cite the website directly. If there is some specific information that seems that it was reported incorrectly or is contradicted by a more-reliable or well-known site, please let me know.
Mental Floss is a multimedia news company and a reliable source. It isn't a blog and it isn't unreliable.
I appreciate your finding additional sources for the article. In general I didn't cite the New York Times because it seemed at the time like its articles were behind a paywall, but I recently found that I could view their articles after making a free account, so several of their articles have since been reviewed and used in the "Chiitan" article.
I will review the articles you cited.
[1]Much of the information from this New York TImes article is already covered in more detail in other articles, and doesn't contradict anything that is already cited: it says the exact same thing as the other sources, but is more general and less detailed. It cites other websites that are already sourced directly in this article. I cited one sentence sourced to this article about people mistaking Chiitan for Shinjo-kun that I hadn't read before.
[2]I reviewed this Guardian article. It shares some of the problems with article [1]: mostly it says the same thing as other articles, but it is more general and less detailed. It has some additional details regarding Oliver's coverage of Chiitan, so I added and sourced that information to this article.
[3]I added references to Chiitan trying to recreate action sequences for a video game found in this article from Polygon. The article incorrectly calls Chiitan "her", when in fact Chiitan has no gender.
[4]Most of the information in this article from the Japan Times is covered in other cited articles, but I added a small amount of new information from the article on speculation about why Chiitan's accounts may have been suspended.
[5]I reviewed this article from the New York Times. It had a lot of new information, and is now cited six times in the current version of the Chiitan article.
Every line of the current version of the Chiitan article is cited, and the article includes information from sixteen sources, none of which contradict each other.Ferox Seneca (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
On non-failing note, I would avoid an all-encompassing section titled "Controversy". Use more NPOV titles for smaller sections like "Reception", "Media coverage", "Reactions from...", or more specific "Banned on Twitter" and "Last Week Tonight episode". Just a suggestion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
As per your request, I changed the subtitle to "media reception".Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I’m on vacation without my laptop and will review another nomination after I arrive this Tuesday, July 10. Please don’t fail the article in the meantime.Ferox Seneca (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ferox Seneca: I would do the QPQ for you rather than fail the nomination. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Why cite Mental Floss when The New York Times is available? Mental Floss is just regurgitating the NYTimes. This article appears to be very weak in citations to reliable sources when there is no lack of coverage.[1][2][3] Instead it relies too much on blogs. There are also possible reasons offered for why the Twitter accounts may have been block which the article fails to note.[4][5] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Both hooks good to go. Both are best placed in the quirky spot. I prefer ALT0 ("baseball bat"). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)