- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ōfune Site
- ... that a fire destroyed many of the Jōmon period artifacts found at the Ōfune Site? Source: "北海道南茅部町大船の同町埋蔵文化財調査団事務所が28日夜に全焼し、世界最古とみられる漆製品や土器など約7万点が焼失した火災で30日午後、道教育委員会の担当職員、町関係者など約30人が集まり、現場を視察した。" [1]
- ALT0a: ... that a fire destroyed 70,000 Jōmon period artifacts found at the Ōfune Site? Source: "北海道南茅部町大船の同町埋蔵文化財調査団事務所が28日夜に全焼し、世界最古とみられる漆製品や土器など約7万点が焼失した火災で30日午後、道教育委員会の担当職員、町関係者など約30人が集まり、現場を視察した。" [2]
- Reviewed: I Hate Running Backwards
Created by Mccunicano (talk). Self-nominated at 00:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC).
The article is new enough, having been created 1 day before nomination. At just over 2000 prose characters the article is 33% to the good regarding long enough. The article is neutral, with each sentence containing online citation. Earwig detected no copyright violation, and neither did my feeble attempts at translation, therefore consider this AGF. I do consider it very unlikely to be a structural violation given the sentence/source combination. The hook is within format. The hook fact is accurate to the source provided, however the fact is presented in a significantly different manner within the article than within the hook. The article says "some" were damaged, while the hook says "many". The sources says 70,000 items were damaged, which seems like "many" to me, but perhaps the collection was much, much larger which is why "some" was used. Anyway, this needs to be reconciled before it can be promoted. The hook is neutrally worded. I believe disaster tends to be interesting to a broad audience. QPQ complete. There is no image, so nothing to check against there. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @78.26: Thanks for your preliminary review. I've updated the text of the article so the hook shouldn't need to be altered. From the news source it seems the destruction of the artifacts was extensive. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 04:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue is resolved. Both hooks are accurate to the source presented in the article, but I think ALT0a is the better hook, as it is less subjective and, I believe, more interesting. Interesting article deserving of mainspace exposure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
