- 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 4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Money Pit
edit... that Money Pit is a legal minefield?
Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 02:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC).
- Although the original hook is based on a quotation from the show's producer, I think the way it is phrased presents the topic in an unduly negative light. It declares, as a factual assertion, that the show may be connected to illegal activity. I think it would be better if we phrased the hook as a matter of opinion:
- ALT1 ... that Money Pit's producer described the show as a "legal minefield"?
- Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's certainly punchy.--Launchballer 17:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, @Launchballer and Notecardforfree: I italicised the title Money Pit in both hooks, since it is the title of a television programme. I agree with Notecardforfree's concern about the original hook painting the show in a problematic light, and think ALT1 is an excellent way of dealing with that issue while retaining the sense of the original hook and keeping it punchy. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's certainly punchy.--Launchballer 17:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed. I've struck the original hook per the comments above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook fact has an inline citation, the article is neutral and I detected no close-paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
