- 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 BorgQueen (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Maya and Yehuda Devir
- ... that after their comic series was featured on an international website, Maya and Yehuda Devir (pictured) got so many followers that they thought their Instagram account had broken? Source: https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/art/2021-12-15/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000017f-e25c-d7b2-a77f-e35faa240000 Hebrew: , וכשאתר תרבות פופולרי בינלאומי העלה עליהם אייטם, מספר העוקבים שלהם זינק. "בתוך שבוע עלינו מכמה אלפי עוקבים לחצי מיליון", מספרת מאיה. "אני בכלל הייתי אז במילואים עם טלפון כבוי, ואחרי שבועיים אני חוזרת הביתה כולי מאובקת והוא פותח לי את הדלת כולו מחויך. 'את לא מאמינה מה קרה, יש לנו 50 אלף עוקבים באינסטגרם. אבל רגע, זה לא הכל, תעשי ריפרש'. והופ, זה קפץ ל–60 אלף. עוד ריפרש, 70 אלף. וככה זה המשיך לטפס, עד שאחרי שבוע הגענו לחצי מיליון. היינו בטוחים — היינו הכי תמימים ומפגרים, באמת — שאינסטגרם התקלקל"., lit. '... and when an internationally popular culture site featured an item on them, their follower count skyrocketed. "Within a week we went from a few thousand followers to half a million," says Maya. "At the time, I was in the reserve with my phone turned off, and after two weeks I come home all dusty and he opens the door for me all smiling. 'You won't believe what happened, we have 50 thousand followers on Instagram. But wait, that's not all, do a refresh.' And whoop, it jumped to 60,000. Another refresh, 70,000. And so it continued to climb, until after a week we reached half a million. We were sure - we were the most naive and retarded, really - that Instagram was broken."'
Moved to mainspace by GRuban (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Maya and Yehuda Devir; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| 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: 
A very interesting nomination that generally looks good, as the QPQ does (hopefully you'll be able to complete it soon). However, I just wanted to note that linking Bored Panda in the hook might be useful to further clarify the sentence. Plus, maybe you could add one more source to justify that first half, choosing from the ones you already used on the article. Also, I think some of the phrases throughout the page are still paraphrased too closely, but this specific entry is not one of those, so it's probably fine. Oltrepier (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GRuban: Oh, I forgot to mention that I would slightly edit your hook, hopefully you're OK with it:
- ALT1: ... that after one of their comic series was featured on an international website in 2017, Maya and Yehuda Devir (pictured) got so many followers that they thought their Instagram account had broken?
- Or maybe, we could even turn the first sentence into a more general reference, like this:
- ALT2: ... that after one of their comic series gained international recognition in 2017, Maya and Yehuda Devir (pictured) got so many followers that they thought their Instagram account had broken?
- Also, would it be better to use "was featured/gained recognition", or "had been featured/had gained recognition", as for consecutio temporum? I hope these suggestions can help! Oltrepier (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Oltrepier: Thanks for reviewing!
- "add one more source to justify that first half" - you mean here, to the nomination, or in the article? Sure, Baltic Times, which I use for the very previous and very next sentences in the article: https://www.baltictimes.com/maya_and_yehuda_devir__authors_behind_one_of_the_most_famous_webcomics_series__are_coming_to_vilnius/
- "A few months later, Yehuda Devir's Instagram account caught the attention of editors from the Lithuania-based and world-leading entertainment website “Bored Panda”. It was the first and probably the most significant step that led to their fame and success. “Just half a year after the first comic was created, the family was seen, and their content shared by “Bored Panda”. In the few following days, Devir's Instagram account was followed by hundreds of thousands of new followers, and in just a week it went over 1.5 million. According to the creators, at first, they thought that their profile was experiencing some technical issues."
- Haaretz, the first source I gave, is considered Israel's newspaper of record, it's hard to ask for a better quality of source for a non-medical/scientific topic, so I thought that would suffice, but I can also add Baltic Times to the middle sentence in the article if you prefer.
- I'm afraid I don't like the hook changes you propose: "one of their comic series" isn't correct, they don't have any other comic series (XOXO is more of a collection than a series, it doesn't really have an order, and doesn't build on other episodes, and while they have a series of advertisement for Phoenix, that isn't really a comic series, it's animation); and I don't think adding "in 2017" materially helps the interest level of the hook, nothing particularly interesting about the year. If you absolutely insist, I can link Bored Panda in the hook, but as I wrote, I think that is too much blue, and they're not dependent on Bored Panda now, they have quite a few different sites that featured them since, and they're quite popular on their own.
- "some of the phrases throughout the page are still paraphrased too closely," I'd love to fix that if you can be more specific.---GRuban (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GRuban: You're right, I forgot about the status of Haaretz... I didn't notice that their article basically covers the full sentence, either: we're absolutely good to go from that point of view, then!
- Thank you for clarifying that detail about the series, as well: I must have missed it while reading through the whole page, I'm so sorry...
- I actually thought adding "in 2017" could be useful to specify when the couple had their breakout moment, at the very least. You're right about not having to link Bored Panda, though.
- I was specifically thinking about the paragraph about the comics that chronicled Maya's first pregnancy, as those phrases might be slightly edited (example: "The couple said that getting pregnant was difficult, as was sharing..."). However, like I said, none of that involves your entry here, so it's probably not a big deal. I hope this explanation helps! Oltrepier (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Oltrepier: Aha, so it's not that you think I reuse the words from another source too much or too closely, it's that you want me to rephrase for some other reason? I changed the sentence, but that's not really what Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing means, it is specifically "the superficial modification of material from another source", so I'm glad that's not an issue. Is there something else I need to do to meet the Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria so you'll give the little green check? --
- @GRuban: No, I think we're fine now! (The original hook is the one to go with) Oltrepier (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@GRuban: On a side note, I think your previous reply was not signed, but luckily I managed to see it anyway... : D
Oltrepier (
talk) 16:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A very interesting nomination that generally looks good, as the QPQ does (hopefully you'll be able to complete it soon). However, I just wanted to note that linking Bored Panda in the hook might be useful to further clarify the sentence. Plus, maybe you could add one more source to justify that first half, choosing from the ones you already used on the article. Also, I think some of the phrases throughout the page are still paraphrased too closely, but this specific entry is not one of those, so it's probably fine. Oltrepier (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)