Talk:Let's Go Karaoke!
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Theleekycauldron in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from Let's Go Karaoke! appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that after a publisher declined the manga series Let's Go Karaoke!, it sold out multiple times as a self-published manga, and was ultimately picked up for publication as a book by a different publisher? Source: Comic Natalie
- Reviewed: New Pony
Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- The article cited is detailed and interesting, however it did not seem to directly state that the writer was originally "rejected" by the publisher. Do let me know if I've missed out on this. - Interesting:
QPQ: 
- QPQ not done
Overall: 
Hook is generally interesting! Would it be possible or iconic enough to replace the name of the actual publisher instead of having it just as "another publisher"? Moonchildkyu — Preceding comment added by Moonchildkyu (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Moonchildkyu: Rephrased the hook and added QPQ. I don't think the publisher of the book (Kadokawa Future Publishing) is especially relevant to a general audience, so I would err on the side of not naming it. Morgan695 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I will approve this per the review aboveand the hook being rephrased. I agree that the publisher name isn't needed. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)- I went ahead and did a complete review myself once I saw that the reviewer is a new editor. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
