- 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 SL93 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Hurricane Shark
Moved to mainspace by Tamzin (talk), Elli (talk), and Theleekycauldron (talk). Nominated by Theleekycauldron (talk) at 08:46, 1 October 2022 (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
|
|
|
Overall: 
So good, this one is perfect for DYK. Good to go. Soulbust (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd prefer "... that the Hurricane Shark might actually be real," because a) one of the two experts was unable to confirm that it was a shark, and b) we don't know if this is the first time it happened. DS (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @DragonflySixtyseven: I think our thinking for this hook was, if you look at how the reliable sources frame the concept of "Hurricane Shark", they look at it much more as an idea than a thing. That's why the article refers to "Hurricane Shark" as a nickname for a concept, not as a specific well-defined phenomenon, because that would exceed what the sources say. In the context of "Hurricane Shark" as idea or meme, The New York Times and BuzzFeed News both take the position that the footage from Ft. Myers makes Hurricane Shark "real", whether or not it actually was a shark, and whether or not it's the first time it's happened. (Worth noting the Goodna shark sightings predate the Hurricane Shark meme, and the only reason it wasn't SYNTH to mention them is that Craig Silverman draws the comparison in this 2011 column.) So I think it's accurate to say that "Hurricane Shark" as a concept is real now, and was not real before; but would be inaccurate to say "might actually be real", because a) that implies a sort of retroactive real-ness that is not true (the best-known Hurricane Shark image remains a hoax) and b) that contradicts what reliable sources say, which is that it is real (again, regardless of whether the fish in the video is as a matter of biological fact a shark). One alternate hook that I'd be fine with, though, is ... that "Hurricane Shark is real"? That would settle any ambiguity by relying on a direct quote from the author of an RS article on the subject. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- That'll work, sure. DS (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so then:
- (definite article added after reviewing source). FWIW I still prefer the original hook, but both are fun and verified. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
