Talk:Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 SL93 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sad interesting story, on plenty of sources, no copyvio obvious. I think a hook mentioning that the two involved were in a road rage would be more important than lawn and even pregnancy. Will you try? Perhaps we don't have to mention the anniversary, which takes extra characters? - Please make the dates consistent: the shooting appears to have happened on 20 November, and death pronounced 21 Nov. That is not 100% clear in the article. I hope you'll find a willing admin once approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will try, though I think that would make the hook less interesting ... I mean, getting shot dead on your own front lawn and then the person who did it not facing any charges because it was self-defense is not something that happens every day, not even in Florida. Shootings following road-rage incidents are, by contrast, unfortunately less unusual, as noted in the article.

I suppose we don't have to mention the anniversary, although in my experience that usually draws more interest when it is noted. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what source did you see that puts the date of death as November 21? All the sources say she was pronounced dead shortly after arrival at the hospital she was taken to shortly after the incident, which happened before 5:30 p.m. that evening. I really doubt from that information that those events took six and a half hours. Perhaps it is possible the death certificate was dated the next day, but it seems pretty clear from the sources that she died the day she was shot. Are you maybe confusing that with the date on some of the news stories? Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about the "21", my reading failure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if I have any policy-based reason to reject this, but I really don't think it's what we want to be running on the homepage, out of respect for the families of the people involved. Leave that for the supermarket tabloids. I certainly don't see fast-tracking this. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have in the past (like, over a decade of doing this) proposed such hooks about tragic events for many anniversaries, even first-year ones; not once before has anyone raised this as an objection. They have all been accepted and ran without any issues. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ALT1:... that a man who shot and killed a pregnant Florida woman waving a gun at him from her front lawn after a road-rage incident was not charged in her death?
    OK ... I reworded the hook to take her name out of it plus mention of the anniversary. Perhaps that will be OK with you? Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that better, thank you. There's a problem with people having these weapons, and pointing at it might serve a good purpose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized it might be more clickable if I added "Florida" as an adjective. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm sorry this is still waiting, and about my mistake in reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, I hope you don't mind, Gerda Arendt – I want to hear what RoySmith says first, because you two had separate concerns. For the record, I happen to agree with his apprehension towards hooks that derive the bulk of their interestingness simply from being lurid. Yes, this hook does have a contradiction that invites the reader to learn more, and I don't fault our nominator for that; it's just that, if you ask me, this might not be the kind of article where the benefits of sharing our new work outweighs the harms of letting it be gawked at through the Main Page. ALT1 is somewhat of an improvement, of course, so I leave the final call to RoySmith. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: It has now been a month and Roy hasn't responded. I think at this point there's no point in waiting any longer; they can be presumed to not care. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2 cents. The article is well written and does not dwell on gory or unseemly details. And the hook is interesting and meets DYK requirements. There may be hooks that are too sensitive or "lurid" to feature on the main page, but this is not one IMO. Morales' death received international coverage from serious journalists as a tragic glimpse into American "gun culture" and road rage. In fact, The Economist (hardly a tabloid) featured the story. See here. I see no reason for us to exclude it from the main page. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ALT1 is fine. Good to go. BorgQueen (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Sara-Nicole_Morales&oldid=1207976593"