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) 05:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
... that The Christian Science Monitor lost $325 million in its expansion into television, during which it owned Boston station WQTV and started a cable channel, the Monitor Channel? Source: [1]
Overall: I'm reviewing for ALT1, since I find it significantly more interesting: businesses lose money trying to venture into new realms all the time, whereas doing a 180 on your ideology to get $$$ has an element of scandal that I think will draw in readers. Several elements assumed to have been covered during GAN; the rest all check out.The only tweak I'd suggest strongly is to link bequest, as it's an unfamiliar term. Beyond that, much more optionally, we could shorten the hook if we want to that the Church of Christ, Scientist once published a text it had previously rejected as blasphemous to obtain a bequest needed to fund its expansion into television? Lmk what your preference is on that, then this will be good to go. Oh, and it'd be nice to give a sense of how big the bequest is, since $72-$95 million is a lot, but the fact that it's a range makes it a bit awkward. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The changes all look good, Sdkb. Our article on Bliss Knapp is almost entirely uncited; the only source is shared with this article (Bridge 1998). The bequest should probably be mentioned at $97 million, per [2]. It likely accrued interest over time, but a 1992 figure makes sense given...everything. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like by the time the lawsuits were settled and the money actually distributed, it was up to $100M in 1993 dollars. I'm also seeing that it looks like the money was more to repay the losses from the expansion than to fund the expansion itself. How is this:
@Sdkb: By the time everything had happened...they had gone from "financing the losses" to "repaying them" (as the Monitor TV operation had been dismantled), but they were clearly publishing to improve their finances in the middle of the process. This is...fine, I guess. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
for ALT1a. If you'd prefer "needed to finance its disastrous" rather than "needed to repay its financially disastrous", I guess repaying is a form of financing, so I wouldn't mind that. Overall, this is definitely an interesting hook; I hope you're excited for it to appear! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm reviewing for ALT1, since I find it significantly more interesting: businesses lose money trying to venture into new realms all the time, whereas doing a 180 on your ideology to get $$$ has an element of scandal that I think will draw in readers. Several elements assumed to have been covered during GAN; the rest all check out.The only tweak I'd suggest strongly is to link bequest, as it's an unfamiliar term. Beyond that, much more optionally, we could shorten the hook if we want to 
for ALT1a. If you'd prefer "needed to finance its disastrous" rather than "needed to repay its financially disastrous", I guess repaying is a form of financing, so I wouldn't mind that. Overall, this is definitely an interesting hook; I hope you're excited for it to appear! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)