- 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) 06:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Daisy (advertisement)
Improved to Good Article status by Kavyansh.Singh (talk). Self-nominated at 03:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC).
- Wasn't a similar DYK already promoted a month ago? by the same nominator? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
Article is a recent GA, long enough and sourced. No copyvio on Earwig and qpq is done I agree with @A.C. Santacruz: I don't think we can run the same hook twice with a different page. This needs a different hook to be approved. Approving ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3b. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's a shame because the hook is really interesting, but the other version was just too similar. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with BuySomeApples A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @BuySomeApples and A. C. Santacruz: Well, here is the thing. I definitely know that a very similar (not same) hook ran a month ago, as I was the nominator. But, I see no DYK rules or guidelines preventing this, except a supplementary guideline, which says "Items that have been on DYK before are ineligible.". Now what does an "item" mean. The hook, the article, the image/media file, or all? This is one aspect of DYK, which is unclear about what should be done. And if we were to add more rules regarding the same, "it would make the process more complicated" (which still has many rules). This is definitely worth discussion. I still favor the main hook, but still providing some addition hooks to be considered. Feel free to suggest more, or reword the following hooks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: I totally get where you're coming from. I still think it's probably best to go with one of the alts since we just had a really similar hook. (Ironically, something similar to ALT also ran in 2016 but that's so long ago that it doesn't matter). ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3 all look good to me, so I'm approving this nom. ALT3 fudges the details a little bit though. The obituary states that it's undisputed that Schwartz came up with the audio concept and that it was based on an earlier commercial of his, and the LOC says that "produced primarily by [Schwartz]". The authorship isn't exactly unknown, its just disputed what (if anything) DDB did to help come up with it. I rephrased it as ALT3b let me know if that's OK with you. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- BuySomeApples – I'm fine with ALT 1, 2 and 3b. When a similar hook ran a month, this page (Daisy advertisement) received almost 16,000 views, while the bolded article hardly received 4000 views.... That inspired me to improve this article to GA standards. Feel free to approve the nomination. If possible, suggest some points for a FAC nomination on its peer review page.– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 to
T:DYK/P2
Article is a recent GA, long enough and sourced. No copyvio on Earwig and qpq is done I agree with @A.C. Santacruz: I don't think we can run the same hook twice with a different page.