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.
Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC).
I agree that the thing about the misquotation is the hookiest fact in the article, but it's clumsily phrased here. For one, the quote is not actually "could have been made by aliens" so, considering this is all about misquotation, we should either use the actual quote or clarify that it is a misquotation. Then "as though it was a real announcement" implies that it was actually, I don't know, a fake announcement? A parody? Also, essay collections don't speak: the chapter in question was written by William Edmonson. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
It's a lot of context to try squeeze into 200 characters, so, and I can't believe I'm suggesting this, why not go with a simple April Fools-style hook:
ALT2 ... that according to a NASA essay collection, ancient carvings "might have been made by aliens"?
Readers can then have their expectations shattered when they click through. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a tricky hook to try write. I don't mind that suggestion -- I'm happy to field more comments about it, because it's definitely a strong one, but it does lean heavy on the contradiction even for April Fool standards. Thank you! Vaticidalprophet 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Overall: The article is long enough (>6,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The claims made in the article are supported by citations to reliable published sources. It presents its topic in a suitably neutral manner, not e.g. overstating the collection's importance or impact. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources (the only big hit is, of course, the block quotation from The Space Review). I'm approving hook ALT2; this hook is cited where the claim appears in the text and is extremely interesting; I agree that this might be a nice one to hold onto until April! The QPQ review looks good. What a nicely written article! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The article is long enough (>6,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The claims made in the article are supported by citations to reliable published sources. It presents its topic in a suitably neutral manner, not e.g. overstating the collection's importance or impact. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources (the only big hit is, of course, the block quotation from The Space Review). I'm approving hook ALT2; this hook is cited where the claim appears in the text and is extremely interesting; I agree that this might be a nice one to hold onto until April! The QPQ review looks good. What a nicely written article! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)