- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PFHLai (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Olympus scandal
edit
... that the scandal involving Olympus Corporation is "one of the biggest and longest-running loss-hiding arrangements in Japanese corporate history"?
Created/expanded by Ohconfucius (talk). Self nom at 04:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the hook either needs to be rewritten to avoid the long quote, or the quote needs to be attributed to the WSJ. I can't find specific DYK guidelines which address the issue, but it seems inappropriate to me to use that quote on the WP home page without attribution. --Pnm (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, it can be shortened. I think we can replace 'Japanese corporate history' with 'Japan', but attributing it in the hook to the WSJ is probably too cumbersome and unnecessary as it's obvious it's a quote. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- How about:
ALT1: ... that the Wall Street Journal called the scandal involving Olympus Corporation "one of the biggest and longest-running loss-hiding arrangements in Japanese corporate history"?
- On the other hand, I don't think there's precident that quotes need to be attributed in-hook. I had a (shorter) quote in a hook once without an in-hook attribution, and no one expressed any concerns about it. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Article is plenty long enough, plenty new enough, and thoroughly sourced. I ran duplication detector against about a dozen of the numerous cited sources. An excellent piece of work about an interesting (and disturbing) business scandal. Although I edited a couple of instances of similar wording, I did not find anything that would rise to a level of real concern. (I did, however, find an online news source -- not one cited in this article -- that had used a sentence from this article, published several days after the wording appeared here.) I prefer the ALT1 hook over the original. AGF on the hook fact, as I cannot access the Wall St. Journal piece, but I believe the quotation likely is true. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)