Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Smith (lawyer)

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 Kingsif (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack Smith (lawyer)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Jack Smith

• ... that Jack Smith (pictured), the special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump, oversaw prosecutions of war crimes committed during the Kosovo War? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed: Fourth QPQ of nine from Template:Did you know nominations/Arellano Chiefs basketball

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC).

• This is not hooky. It's the best-known fact about him. The fact that he's already won convictions of officeholders would be far better. Rutsq (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that's hookier, but ALT1 added. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• ALT1 ... that Jack Smith (pictured), the special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump, oversaw the prosecutions of Sheldon Silver, Bob McDonnell, Rick Renzi, and Jeffrey Sterling?
• Article is new & long enough. Appropriately referenced and no evidence of copyvio. QPQ done. Rutsq's objection doesn't make much sense to me. There is nothing mutually exclusive between "best-known" (not synonymous with "boring" or "obvious") and "hooky" facts. Accordingly, I prefer the original hook to ALT1. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• @Muboshgu: could you clarify what review you're using for your QPQ? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What's unclear about "Fourth QPQ of nine from Template:Did you know nominations/Arellano Chiefs basketball"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    • That's Template:Did you know nominations/Common parsley frog which was reviewed by somebody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
      • RoySmith I think I understand. Muboshgu reviewed all nine of the bolded articles that were part of Howard the Duck's hook. SL93 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
        • That's correct. I'm not claiming credit for the frog article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
          • I still don't quite understand the "fourth of nine" bit, but if SL93 is satisfied, I'm good. Tick restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
            • The user nominated a nine article hook. I reviewed nine articles and get nine QPQs. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• ALT2: ... that Jack Smith (pictured), the special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump, is a competitive triathlete despite not becoming a swimmer until he was in his midthirties? Valereee (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• ALT3: ... that Jack Smith (pictured), the special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump, has experience prosecuting government officials for misconduct.
  • I suggest this is less ho-hum than the initial proposal and avoids presenting a series of unfamiliar names as ALT1 does. Rutsq (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    • interestingness tick of ALT2 in good faith :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)