Template:Did you know nominations/The Neanderthals Rediscovered

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PrimalMustelid talk 10:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Neanderthals Rediscovered

  • ... that the authors of The Neanderthals Rediscovered learned they were accepted to write it on the same day they took their twin sons home from hospital? Source: Nocella, Michael (24 September 2013). "Neanderthals Rediscovered By Armonk Couple". Armonk Daily Voice. Retrieved 17 October 2023.; Papagianni, Dimitria; Morse, Michael A (2013). "Preface". The Neanderthals Rediscovered: How Modern Science is Rewriting Their Story. New York, New York: Thames & Hudson. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-500-05177-1.

Moved to mainspace by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 12:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Neanderthals Rediscovered; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Comment: ALT0, "they were accepted to write it" is a bit clunky, "hired to writed it", "learned their offer to write it was accepted", "learned they would be the writers" ... -Bogger (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Terminology is a little tricky here, on account of the vagaries of the nonfiction publishing world. "Hired to write it" would be a work-for-hire, which is a very different thing, and "learned they would be the writers" at least gestures in a similar direction -- something for which the premise was decided by a third party. I'm not sure "learned their offer to write it was accepted" is less clunky. Vaticidalprophet 00:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • New enough (and quick GA too), long enough, well written and well sourced, no copyvio concern, QPQ present. AGF on synopsis. Interesting hook is really all primary sourced (quotation from news story) but still reliably sourced, and again AGF on the book source. Added slightly variation of ALT0a, just a more direct rephrasing from the article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)