Template:Did you know nominations/Misanthropy

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 Bruxton (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Misanthropy

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that some misanthropes reject humanity because of how humans treat other animals? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that socio-economic inequality makes misanthropy more likely? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Hạc_San

References

Sources

• Cooper, David E. (2 February 2018). Animals and Misanthropy. Routledge. ISBN 9781351583770.
• Hooghe, M.; Stolle, D. (15 May 2003). Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Springer. p. 185. ISBN 9781403979544.
• Querido, Pedro (February 2020). "Andrew Gibson, Misanthropy: The Critique of Humanity". Comparative Critical Studies. 17 (1): 152–7. doi:10.3366/ccs.2020.0349. hdl:10451/46707. ISSN 1744-1854. S2CID 216373633.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Misanthropy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Phlsph7: looks good on all fronts. Both hooks are interesting, although I think the latter is more engaging and relevant. No sourcing issues with either. MSG17 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@MSG17: Thanks for the review. In that case, let's go for ALT1. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@MSG17 and MSG17: I am not a fan of ALT1. I think ALT0 strikes me as clickable. A message regarding the source. It is book, and the reference covers too many pages. I had to read through many pages in order to confirm. Bruxton (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)