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 Hilsttalk 19:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Article is of a substantial length and was made a GA on November 21. It was nominated in the proper time frame, and is within policy. No copyright violations detected. The hook length is fine, and the fact is interesting and verified to the cited source. The only issue is that we need to attribute the quote in the hook to the Museum of Modern Art. Once that is fixed I can approve the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Does it need to be attributed within the hook? That would adversely affect catchiness and does not seem to be a requirement looking at recent DYK hooks like this and this.--NØ 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I've had several of my hook proposals held up in the past when I've done quotes; particularly when they make exceptional claims like the one in this hook. Personally I think attributing the quote to MOMA makes it more hooky not less. But that's just me.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for that nomination, MaranoFan and thanks for notifying me and for your concern, 4meter4. Rather busy at the moment, sorry. How would you wish to have it phrased if it's attributed? "by XX" seems impossible, as the name of the person is not known only the insitution (by the MoMa does not sound right) ;"in a presentation for a screening at the MoMa"? Not too long?21:07, -Mushy Yank.3 December 2024 (UTC)
Alt1... that the 1976 Philippine film Itim was described as "one of the most remarkable debuts in cinema history" at a 2022 retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art?
@Mushy Yank Here is my suggested alt. I'll have to get another reviewer to promote it since I wrote it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Overall: Taking on this review. The article was nominated two days after GA promotion, so it falls within the seven-day timeframe. Since it was already a GA, I will skip the copyright and source spotchecks. I believe ALT1 sufficiently meets DYKDEFINITE and is verifiable with the source. QPQ done. Good to go! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Article is of a substantial length and was made a GA on November 21. It was nominated in the proper time frame, and is within policy. No copyright violations detected. The hook length is fine, and the fact is interesting and verified to the cited source. The only issue is that we need to attribute the quote in the hook to the Museum of Modern Art. Once that is fixed I can approve the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Need a hook review of Alt 1.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Taking on this review. The article was nominated two days after GA promotion, so it falls within the seven-day timeframe. Since it was already a GA, I will skip the copyright and source spotchecks. I believe ALT1 sufficiently meets DYKDEFINITE and is verifiable with the source. QPQ done. Good to go! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)