Template:Did you know nominations/Pearl Lady

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 97198 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Lady

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Pearl Lady remained unidentified until 2014 after a fingerprint comparison?

Created by Gourami Watcher (talk). Self nominated at 03:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

• Nomination is on hold; article has been nominated for deletion. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Consensus was keep. Should we move further with the nomination?--GouramiWatcher^(?) 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Full review needed now that article has survived AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. If the nominator has already had 5 DYKs, a QPQ should be submitted. The hook could be hookier, however. How about:
• ALT1: ... that for eight years, a drowned woman was identified only by the pearl-like beads she wore around her neck? Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• This seems a bit confusing. This DYK phrase makes it appear that her identity was discovered because of the pearls, when in fact, it was through fingerprints. Is there another hook that would work? --GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that Pearl Lady was found in the Ohio River? @EEng: your creativity is needed here! Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You rang? EEng and Martinevans123 – separated at birth?

• I've found these missing-persons noms difficult, partly because I'm hesitant to make light given that there are likely living relatives somewhere. How about this:

ALT3 ... that the Pearl Lady had no pearls?

EEng (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I like it. Let's see what the nominator thinks. Yoninah (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To pursue the idea:

ALT4: ... that the Pearl Lady wasn't wearing pearls? Yoninah (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Another "killer" hook. EEng (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. I'm struggling to figure out how I can get this guy grilled on the witness stand. EEng (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel that we should stay away from the jewelry part and stick with the identification.

ALT5 …that Pearl Lady's body wasn't identified until 2014. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 13:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are you ok with:
• ALT6: ... that Pearl Lady wasn't identified until 2014? Yoninah (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good! --GouramiWatcher^(?) 17:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Not so hooky, but manageable. Since I just deleted a word from the nominator's ALT5 suggestion, I'm going ahead and approving this. Hook ref verified and cited inline. ALT6 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yoninah, Gourami Watcher has three previous DYKs promoted to the main page; this is one of four current nominations. Two of them will need QPQs, but not necessarily this one if it is approved sooner. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)