Template:Did you know nominations/Gisele Bündchen

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) 16:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen

(

)

Gisele Bündchen in 2006

... ~~that Gisele Bündchen (pictured) alleges that she was audited by the Internal Revenue Service because of her regular top placing on a Forbes magazine high-earners list?~~ Source: Forbes
- ALT1:... that Gisele Bündchen (pictured) partnered with former U.S. President Bill Clinton and the Pantene company to provide clean water for people in need? Source: CNN
- ALT2:... that Gisele Bündchen (pictured) has appeared on Vogue covers with George Clooney and LeBron James? The CutESPN

Reviewed: 60 Hudson Street
Comment: I would’ve liked the hook to be about her 37 international Vogue covers in one year (2000), but unfortunately the best source I could find isn’t that good for it. There is a Vogue source about 3 American covers in that year (still an incredible feat which no model has done since) but that doesn’t exactly grab the magnitude of the accomplishments. Other alts can be made too.

Improved to Good Article status by Trillfendi (talk). Self-nominated at 20:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC).

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I have verified all three hooks but since I tweaked ALT0 for accuracy, I will need the nominator Trillfendi's approval of the change before proceeding. Gatoclass (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Trillfendi again as I failed to add a new datestamp to the last comment so the ping probably didn't work. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: If someone is audited by the IRS, they would have received an official letter for it, it isn’t speculative. My hook was worded in a way that was neutral toward both parties. ⌚️ (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually Trillfendi, the reason I copyedited your hook in the first place was because it had the same ambiguity - but now that you mention it, I agree that my initial copyedit didn't altogether remove it, so I've given it another tweak, please take a look and tell me what you think. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

When referring to reports, the word to use is alleged, allegedly, etc. ⌚️ (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that Gisele Bündchen (pictured) thinks that the reason she was audited by the Internal Revenue Service was because of her regular top placing on a Forbes magazine high-earners list? Source: Forbes

Trillfendi, I have struck ALT0 because, as I noted previously, it is ambiguous. When you say "Gisele Bündchen alleges that she was audited by the Internal Revenue Service" it can be misread to mean that she alleges she was audited, rather than the intended meaning, which is that she alleges the audit was done because of her placing on a high earners list. And I'm restoring the hook as I tweaked it as ALT3, because it eliminates the ambiguity. If you don't like that hook, we can run with ALT1 or ALT2 instead, but IMO ALT0 is not viable. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Eh, alright. If you feel that it’s the best wording then let’s go with it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Approving Alt3. --evrik ^(talk) 05:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)