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) 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Overall: Plagiarism checks look good. Article meets eligibility criteria for DYK (i.e. size / newness). Hook sourcing - preview of paper on JSTOR validates the ~10M words. The NYT article validates the million human hours. The Project Muse website is behind a hard paywall, but, the abstract has some inkling of 56 volumes mentioned, will go with it. Assuming good faith overall for these sources behind access controls. QPQ done. I have two comments that I will paste below for your response. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Eddie891:, are you open to a rewrite of the hook. Nothing major. As a reader, I found this hook a tad hard to grasp. Can you start with a word or two describing what Index Thomistic is? Follow that up what you mean by covered. Follow that up with why that number is huge by way of comparison with something that the lay person can relate / compare the volume to. E.g. The digital humanities project Index Thomistic which aimed to <insert aim here> took <volume of effort> <comparable to this effort / volume>.
Similarly, on the article, some amount of rewrites for a lay reader to follow along will be good. Hopefully this feedback is helpful. Please let me know if you'd want me to be more specific. Cheers Ktin (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Ktin, I've given the article a copyedit that will hopefully make it easier to understand but I think the most helpful thing to do here is have links to concordance (publishing) and lemmatisation so the reader can click on them if they aren't sure of the meaning. I kinda disagree that the hook needs to be clarified, because the point of a hook is to hook the readers interest, and have them asking things like "What is this? And why is it important?", and clicking on the article. I'd argue that 10 million words and one million hours of work would seem big in any context, no comparison needed. I'm also not sure where the comparison would fit in the article, as it is essentially trivia. There are possible alternate hooks or phrasings, such as
or any number of mixings of the 10 million words/70,000 pages/56 volumes/one million hours/early e-book statistics. I'd be happy to clarify anything in the article if you could be more specific, and I don't maintain that I'm right to not want to clarify the hook, I'm open to changing my mind. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for the review and wishing you and yours a happy new year. Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork 21:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Prefer ALT0 to ALT1. Marking it as approved. Cheers and Good luck. Ktin (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Plagiarism checks look good. Article meets eligibility criteria for DYK (i.e. size / newness). Hook sourcing - preview of paper on JSTOR validates the ~10M words. The NYT article validates the million human hours. The Project Muse website is behind a hard paywall, but, the abstract has some inkling of 56 volumes mentioned, will go with it. Assuming good faith overall for these sources behind access controls. QPQ done. I have two comments that I will paste below for your response. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)