Template:Did you know nominations/Money Shot: The Pornhub Story

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 Bruxton (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Money Shot: The Pornhub Story

(

)

... that Money Shot: The Pornhub Story was described by multiple reviewers as unsalacious? Source: Neither salacious ..., Viewers hoping for salaciousness or titillation, however, will be sorely disappointed, ... if you were hoping for something more salacious ... you'd be deeply disappointed
- Reviewed: Mira (YouTuber)

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 11:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Money Shot: The Pornhub Story; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv and Gog the Mild: The articles supporting the citation do not use the word unsalacious and it does not seem to be a word according to merriam-webster or Cambridge. We can change it to "not salacious" as that is supported by the reference. Bruxton (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your call. Wiktionary considers it a word. It doesn't seem that uncommon, nor especially recent - [1]. I was unaware that each word in a hook needed to be found in the/a source, indeed I had thought that good paraphrasing was the essence of Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I understood the meaning - so perhaps others will. In our hook we are quoting reviewers of the series and they apparently did not use the word unsalacious, but it describes many reviews. I will leave the word as it is and see if any other editors protest or tweak the hook in the prep or queue. Bruxton (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bruxton. To my eye we are not stating that they said it was unsalacious, we are saying that they described it as unsalacious. IMO they did. Other opinions are no doubt available. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)