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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
... that more than 4million videos on TikTok feature the song "Mia Khalifa"—also known as the "Hit or Miss" song—even though the app had not licensed its use and has never paid the artists?
Sources:
"More than 2.5 million 'hit or miss' TikTok videos have been published to date." Tubefilter (Dec. 2018)
"Currently, that same 15 seconds of audio from 'Mia Khalifa' has been used in over four million TikTok videos. ... But as iLOVEFRiDAY were amassing views, and dollars, through YouTube, they weren't making a dime from TikTok. ... they had released 'Mia Khalifa' using TuneCore, a digital distributor that ... doesn't license songs to TikTok. ... When I first spoke with iLOVEFRiDAY in December, ... Xeno told me he was surprised that nobody from TikTok had contacted them ... [Later,] their manager ... tells me he worked out a deal that grants TikTok continued, free use of 'Mia Khalifa'..." — Pitchfork (Feb. 2019)
Comment: The reason for including both of those sources: I think this hook packs the most salient facts into the most compact hook-size package, but because it is so condensed I want to show that the wording retains precision, strict accuracy, and foundation in sources. According to Pitchfork's timeline, the song became licensed for TikTok at some point between December 2018 and February 2019. It's correct that TikTok "had not" initially licensed the song when it began to achieve popularity on the app—and as Tubefilter shows, there were already "millions" of videos using the song prior to any license agreement. It remains true that the group have not received payment because the eventually agreed-upon license does not require payment. —BLZ · talk 04:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Created by Brandt Luke Zorn (talk). Self-nominated at 04:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC).
"millions" seems like a weasel word. I'd keep the two citations, even though the one says 2.5, and instead say "... that over 4 million videos on TikTok currently feature the song "Mia Khalifa", also changing "featured" to just "feature". I'd also change the last part to "even though the app did not license its use and never paid the artists?" Do this and you just might have a DYK nominee on your hands! -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding "millions" and "featured": fair enough. I wanted to use the word "millions" to account for the fact that the sources don't indicate at what point between 2.5m and 4m the license came into effect. Nevertheless I see your point that it comes across as weaselly—technically, it could also mean up to 0.99 billion(!)—and it's not necessary to preserve the ambiguity between 2.5m–4m for the statement to remain accurate. I've changed it to "more than 4million videos on TikTok feature".
Re "though the app did not license its use": I'm concerned that saying TikTok "did not license" the song would suggest that the company failed to ever license it. They did license it eventually, albeit well after their app hosted at least 2.5 million videos (probably quite a bit more). The reader should understand that licensing may have occurred, but it certainly did not occur at an appropriate or expected moment early on. The past perfect tense in "had not licensed" signals that TikTok had failed to do so at the outset without a false implication that TikTok never licensed it at all.
I think if the hook uses "did not", it would probably need an adverb to remain strictly accurate and avoid misleading implications. For example, this would be fine: "even though the app did not originally license its use". An alternate adverb like "initially" would also work. Let me know what you think; I think "had not" is a bit more efficient.
Re "and never paid the artists": the clarity of "has never paid" vs. "never paid" matters because that fact is verifiably true right up to the present moment, and the hook should make that aspect clear. Saying "never paid" suggests that any transaction between the two has finished and makes it sound as though TikTok "got away with something". On the other hand, "has never paid" reflects the ongoing condition of their relationship with the artist.
Incidentally, I've now done my QPQ by reviewing your nomination of Roar. —BLZ · talk 21:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Re "more than 4million videos on TikTok feature": that'd be perfect, and you're right about the 0.99 billion part.
Re "even though the app did not originally license its use": I see what you mean about the indication, and it's tricky to figure out the wording that'd tell when they hadn't licensed it. I read it over again and I too thought "oh, you could just say initially", but "had not" works too. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 22:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
And even "had not" when paired with "has never paid the artists" used later in the sentence will do.
@NowIsntItTime: now that you've ironed out the hook wording, please provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. An optional Reviewer's Template is located above the edit window. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"millions" seems like a weasel word. I'd keep the two citations, even though the one says 2.5, and instead say "... that over 4 million videos on TikTok currently feature the song "Mia Khalifa", also changing "featured" to just "feature". I'd also change the last part to "even though the app did not license its use and never paid the artists?" Do this and you just might have a DYK nominee on your hands! -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@NowIsntItTime: now that you've ironed out the hook wording, please provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. An optional Reviewer's Template is located above the edit window. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Pass or miss? I guess they never miss huh? -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 22:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)