Template:Did you know nominations/Hollinwell incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 Alex ShihTalk 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hollinwell incident[edit]

Created by Violetriga (talk). Self nominated at 12:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

  • New enough, no copyright violation, and properly sourced. I am puzzled by the claim that "the estimated number of casualties is around 300". The word "casualties" means people killed or seriously injured in an accident. I am not sure the incident can be described as an accident, and (unless I'm mistaken) these people were neither killed nor seriously injured. The hook is okay, but I think you could make it a bit "hookier", perhaps by mentioning that the witnesses strongly disagree with the official inquiry or otherwise playing the "conspiracy"/"mystery" card. As I said, however, the original hook is fine. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Casualty" doesn't have to be an accident and can include people who are "badly affected by an event". I will try to come up with some variations on the hook later. violet/riga [talk] 14:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
All hooks are well-sourced and hooky. My favourite, without a doubt, is ALT1, as it's loaded with the element of mystery and would certainly make readers want to find out more. The final decision should be yours, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm happy for any of the ALTs to be used at the discretion of the person promoting this to prep. violet/riga [talk] 19:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)