Template:Did you know nominations/Monique Luiz
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Monique Luiz
[edit]- ... that Monique Luiz, star of the famous 1964 political ad Daisy, did not see the spot for herself until 2000? Source: [1]
Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 18:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC).
New enough, long enough; hook is cited, short enough yet interesting. QPQ done, good to go Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 04:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Neither Monique Luiz nor Daisy states that the ad is "famous". In any event, as it was only shown once, calling it famous seems a bit of a stretch. Edwardx (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, it seems to be fairly WP:CK, however, I've added seven sources (The Atlantic, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME Magazine, USA Today, Washington Post, the Public Broadcasting System, and Politico, that call the ad either "famous" or the "most famous"). Pinging Satellizer so he can re-tick this. (Sorry, Satellizer, for the hassle.) LavaBaron (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks LavaBaron. If reliable sources call it "famous", that's plenty good enough for me. May well be WP:CK across the pond, but I'm British. Edwardx (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, Edwardx. I've gone ahead and added an eighth source that calls the ad "famous", the BBC, in light of this observation. LavaBaron (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just to make sure we have all our bases covered I've also added Deutsche Presse Agentur calling the ad "famous". LavaBaron (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Confirmed that the parts of the hook are correct and cited. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
