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) 07:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Overall: Promoted to GA within the acceptable nomination period by a very experienced GA reviewer, and a brief read-through further confirms that there are no issues with neutrality or plagiarism. Nominator has fewer than 5 DYK nominations, so QPQ is not necessary. To me the original hook seems the best: ALT1 as currently written requires more context in order to be truly hooky. ALT2 has a similar issue, as its "hookiness" is dependent on how many singles they had had up to that point and the longevity of the band. The original hook is interesting but not cited directly; presumably it is in the citation at the end of the paragraph, but I need the nominator's confirmation since I cannot read the source. Furthermore, the direct quotes in this paragraph (including one used in the hook) should be cited directly. CanadianPaul 03:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Canadian Paul: I've mention the original hook in the article here ("Initially, the group were on holiday in Hong Kong and had an "awful" situation, as they were in an active pitch for a famous band but they disliked the music.") In the source, there's a quote from one of the video's directors Jake Knight saying: "Originally we were on holiday in Hong Kong and had an awful situation, as we were in an active pitch for a famous band and we didn't like the music." So do you want me to directly cite this quote on the article? Beyoncetan (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. All direct quotations must have a direct citation, per WP:WHYCITE, as well as DYK and GA guidelines. CanadianPaul 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Canadian Paul: I've fixed that part. Is the article okay now, Paul? Beyoncetan (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
There were still some problems with direct quotations (one did not match the original source) and close paraphrasing, but I took a more careful look through and I believe that this is good to go now. CanadianPaul 15:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Promoted to GA within the acceptable nomination period by a very experienced GA reviewer, and a brief read-through further confirms that there are no issues with neutrality or plagiarism. Nominator has fewer than 5 DYK nominations, so QPQ is not necessary. To me the original hook seems the best: ALT1 as currently written requires more context in order to be truly hooky. ALT2 has a similar issue, as its "hookiness" is dependent on how many singles they had had up to that point and the longevity of the band. The original hook is interesting but not cited directly; presumably it is in the citation at the end of the paragraph, but I need the nominator's confirmation since I cannot read the source. Furthermore, the direct quotes in this paragraph (including one used in the hook) should be cited directly. Canadian Paul 03:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
There were still some problems with direct quotations (one did not match the original source) and close paraphrasing, but I took a more careful look through and I believe that this is good to go now. Canadian Paul 15:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)