- 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 Kimikel talk 03:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It's OK I'm OK
Created by
MaranoFan (
talk).
Number of QPQs required:
1. Nominator has 74 past nominations.
NØ 07:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC).
- ::
A singer getting naked to promote her song? Propose to revise the hook. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC) * -->
-
New hooks provided above. Ping to Sarvagyana guru in case you are interested in continuing the review.--NØ 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sarvagyana guru: Do you have a WP:DYKG-based reason for declining ALT0, because a similar hook's been suggested at Self-Ish? (My understanding is that while it is perfectly common for songstresses to wear little while promoting their music, it's unusual for them to wear nothing.) Also, @MaranoFan:, I did get your talk page message, but I was too overwhelmed to respond to it and I have a policy of reviewing oldest first anyway.--Launchballer 12:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- No worries about any delays in your response, Launchballer. It is a bit sad that a nomination with multiple perfectly good hooks would have to wait for almost two months, though, when the DYK feature is intended to showcase newly improved content. I will note the first reviewer has not edited in 10 days.--NØ 09:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I hear you. I've been waiting over a month for someone to tick off a reviewer's hook at Gigi Perez.--Launchballer 16:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Full review needed by new reviewer; previous reviewer has not returned despite multiple pings. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2024 (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: 
Pass ALT 3 below per User:Crisco 1492. To address the discussion up above: Will Wood actually got naked for Self-Ish while Tate McRae did not. This is addressed by ALT1, which is why I've crossed out ALT0 as incorrect (the erroneous source used for ALT0 was published on Sep 13, while a later article in Capital, published just a month later, clarifies that she wasn't naked at all). Right now, I would support ALT1, but it should be rewritten. There are any number of ways to do this, but I will provide just one example: " ... that the "It's OK I'm OK" music video was edited to make Tate McRae appear naked?" I think that just passes the bar of the interesting criterion, but others may disagree. Of course, other hooks would be appreciated, but I think if ALT1 can be rewritten we can use it. I'm willing to hear other dissenting voices and I'm happy to change my mind, however. Viriditas (talk)
- Alright, I'll formally put an ALT. ALT 3: ... that the music video for "It's OK I'm OK" was edited to make its singer appear naked? That's about all the source seems to support ("Jimmy asked if camera trickery was at play and Tate said it was down to some very artistic editing. She added: "It’s fully the editing of it and the art of it. It’s just the way it was shot.") Looking at the video, it appears to be digital manipulation, but I can't find anything dealing with it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, W goes into a bit more detail. Also segues with her Skims advertising commitment. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: That's great, but for ALT3, can you move Tate McRae to where "her" is, so we can have the song in the lead position? ("that the music video for It's OK I'm OK was edited to make Tate McRae appear naked?") Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Pass ALT 3 below per User:Crisco 1492.