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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
... that Joice Island was the location of a "web of intrigue" in 1890, a failed asparagus farm in 1905, a wildlife refuge in 1950, a hunting preserve in 1965, and a pig hunt in 2017? Source: Too many to include here (check article).
5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC).
"Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the sentence(s) offering that fact." So saith Wikipedia. This hook makes no pretense of fulfilling that requirement. It also blows off the request that the nominator supply proof of their assertions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs)
@Georgejdorner: The individual components of the hook are sourced in the article (with clippings taken specifically so that they can be verified by non-subscribers). I can also reproduce them here for you:
"Mrs. Bensley's Methods". The San Francisco Examiner. San Francisco, California. 1890-06-06. p. 4.
If there's an issue with any of these, let me know and I will amend the article accordingly. jp×g 10:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
So where is the single sentence encapsulating the hook, with these eight citations immediately following it?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
No, that is not a valid review. The hook is not required to be cited to a single sentence. WP:DYK criterion 3b says "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact." At no point does it say "a single sentence"; in fact, it explicitly allows for multiple sentences. There are also no comments regarding whether the article is new enough or long enough, which really should be considered before a hook's eligibility based on sourcing. Since the review only covered the sourcing of the hook (and not the eligibility of the article or its sources, neutrality, and copyright status), it is not a valid or complete review. Epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, nominations are not rejected solely for not meeting one or more of the DYK criteria at the time of review. Nominators are generally given lots of leeway to improve the article to meet standards after nomination. Come down to the prep sets sometime, where we promote nominations—we cite people's hooks for them every once in a while after they've been approved, as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Overall: If I was reviewing the island itself, I wouldn't approve it. Very strange shape, looks like a three-year-old tried to draw a dinosaur, not really what islands are supposed to look like, thanks for the effort but try again later. The article and hook are good to go, though. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd be inclined to agree -- it isn't even one contiguous piece of land, which I figured was the bare minimum for being an island... jp×g 06:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
"Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the sentence(s) offering that fact." So saith Wikipedia. This hook makes no pretense of fulfilling that requirement. It also blows off the request that the nominator supply proof of their assertions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 
No, that is not a valid review. The hook is not required to be cited to a single sentence. WP:DYK criterion 3b says "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact." At no point does it say "a single sentence"; in fact, it explicitly allows for multiple sentences. There are also no comments regarding whether the article is new enough or long enough, which really should be considered before a hook's eligibility based on sourcing. Since the review only covered the sourcing of the hook (and not the eligibility of the article or its sources, neutrality, and copyright status), it is not a valid or complete review. Epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If I was reviewing the island itself, I wouldn't approve it. Very strange shape, looks like a three-year-old tried to draw a dinosaur, not really what islands are supposed to look like, thanks for the effort but try again later. The article and hook are good to go, though. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)