Template:Did you know nominations/The Hate U Give
- 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) 05:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Hate U Give[edit]
- ... that the shooting of Oscar Grant motivated Angie Thomas to write a short story that became the basis for her debut novel, The Hate U Give? (Source: "When Oscar Grant, an unarmed, black 22-year-old, was fatally shot on New Year’s Day 2009 by a white Oakland transit police officer, calls for justice swept throughout the country. Angie Thomas felt them all the way in Jackson, Miss. 'In my anger and frustration, I wrote a short story about a boy named Khalil who was a lot like Oscar and a girl named Starr who was a lot like me,' she said." Los Angeles Times)
- ALT1:... that thirteen publishing houses bid for the rights to publish Angie Thomas's debut novel The Hate U Give? (Source: "Balzer + Bray Prevails in 13-House Auction for YA Debut" Publisher's Weekly)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pedro Zaragoza
- Comment: The film adaptation of this novel will be released on October 19, so it'd be great if we could time the DYK with that.
Improved to Good Article status by Barkeep49 (talk) and Innisfree987 (talk). Nominated by Innisfree987 (talk) at 23:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC).
- Image Just to note that an image of the book jacket illustrates the entry per fair use rules; I'm not sure how that (usage restrictions) figures into mainpage features, but if it's allowed, it could make for a nice image to accompany this DYK. If the reviewer or other readers can advise, that'd be great! Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Additional hooks Barkeep49 and I discussed more options for hooks and wording at Talk:The_Hate_U_Give#DYK_discussion so we can pull more from there potentially if these don't appeal. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Article was a new GA the day it was nominated. It easily meets the length requirement and has no policy issues. No issues with copyvio/close paraphrase - all similar phrases from Earwig are either proper nouns or properly sourced/cited quotes. I prefer the original hook to ALT1 - it speaks powerfully to the novel's content, which would be more interesting to a broad audience in my opinion. Citation for the hook is good.- Since the book cover is fair use, we can't use it on the main page, but we could use the photo of the author if you wanted to include that. Aside from that, we're good to go here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks PMC. I've not submitted with a picture before so I'll let Innisfree987 weigh in on their preference. The thing I would like to see is for it to be entered in the front page queue for 10/19. While tied to the film's wide release in the US, it is still compliant with the rules since we are not directly promoting the film but interest in the article will likely be higher than normal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh hey, it's you again! I'm not sure about the special occasion request. I know it's technically within the rules given that the article is about the book and not the movie that's being released that day, but I would prefer a third opinion from a more experienced DYK reviewer just in case. I'll post on the DYK talk page soliciting input. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just an opinion, not a review. I prefer ALT1, far less politically charged, and thus more neutral.-- RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia defines neutrality: it'd actually be less neutral and arguably at odds with WP:NOTCENSORED to exclude something that is an accurate presentation of reliably sourced, factual information because of a WP editor's personal view of the political implications. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- The original hook is very neutrally worded. It factually describes the event as a shooting, avoiding the use of words that assign blame, without even mentioning who or what caused the shooting. It doesn't mention race or police or the intersection of the two in any way. If you'd never heard of Mr. Grant or Ms. Thomas or the book in question (and we can't assume that any given reader would have - we have readers from all over the world), you wouldn't have any idea that the hook had any relation to race and policing in America. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Quite. Moreover, race and policing would also be perfectly acceptable DYK topics so long as they are described per NPOV; the only political topic barred is a candidate for public office within 30 days of the relevant election. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- The original hook is very neutrally worded. It factually describes the event as a shooting, avoiding the use of words that assign blame, without even mentioning who or what caused the shooting. It doesn't mention race or police or the intersection of the two in any way. If you'd never heard of Mr. Grant or Ms. Thomas or the book in question (and we can't assume that any given reader would have - we have readers from all over the world), you wouldn't have any idea that the hook had any relation to race and policing in America. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia defines neutrality: it'd actually be less neutral and arguably at odds with WP:NOTCENSORED to exclude something that is an accurate presentation of reliably sourced, factual information because of a WP editor's personal view of the political implications. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)