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 Bruxton (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bilorv and Gog the Mild: The articles supporting the citation do not use the word unsalacious and it does not seem to be a word according to merriam-webster or Cambridge. We can change it to "not salacious" as that is supported by the reference. Bruxton (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Your call. Wiktionary considers it a word. It doesn't seem that uncommon, nor especially recent - [1]. I was unaware that each word in a hook needed to be found in the/a source, indeed I had thought that good paraphrasing was the essence of Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I understood the meaning - so perhaps others will. In our hook we are quoting reviewers of the series and they apparently did not use the word unsalacious, but it describes many reviews. I will leave the word as it is and see if any other editors protest or tweak the hook in the prep or queue. Bruxton (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Bruxton. To my eye we are not stating that they said it was unsalacious, we are saying that they described it as unsalacious. IMO they did. Other opinions are no doubt available. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)