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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Overall: Promoted to GA, long enough, no plagiarism, hook is cited and interesting and QPQ done. I would just suggest the hook be altered to the following. Please ping me if that's acceptable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean that would be fine, I tend to go for the shorter version where possible but have no problem with this one. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇX 20:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Great. Yeah, I think ALT1 wording is better because it indicates that that was said by someone outside of the song's creation (ie a reviewer), versus someone involved with its creation describing it like that. And the hook is still within the character count. Pass with ALT1. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Promoter's comment to@Favre1fan93: While I get where you're coming from, I honestly think ALT0 was fine. Yes, there's something to be said for explicitly attribution, but I think the whimsy of just getting to the point outweighs that need. People are going to get from the absurdity of the line that it's not some universal truth about the song, it's something that someone said. This is a stylistic choice to be sure, and I am going to promote ALT1, but I think that there's something to be said for keeping the hooks a little hookier in exchange for ditching some minor context.