- 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: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
AT 2021lwx
- ... that Scary Barbie was caused by a supermassive black hole? Source: NY Times
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/13 Lakes
- Comment: Alternate hooks welcome!
Created by Thriley (talk), Drbogdan (talk), Melasaoirse (talk), and Robert.Allen (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 04:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/AT 2021lwx; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- No. - Long enough:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - See below.
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article moved to mainspace on 14 May but not nominated until 23 May, which is more than seven days later. It meets the length requirement, even if only barely. I don't think IFL Science is an appropriate source to use for the material it is used for. All other sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for. There are no obvious neutrality issues. Earwig reveals no copyvio and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing (WP:LIMITED is in full effect). The hook is interesting, largely because the nickname "Scary Barbie" is catchy (which also means that any other hooks that use the nickname would likely be interesting as well). QPQ has been done. On account of this all being rather technical, I will never be able to entirely rule out having missed some kind of disqualifying content issue, so eventually I'll just have to WP:AGF. Some comments about the content as it stands at the moment:
a total radiated energy of more than 1.5 × 1053 erg over three years
– three years? Maybe there's something I'm missing, but the source says "440 rest-frame days from the onset of the event"- As noted above, I don't think IFL Science is an appropriate source to use here. If the mass cannot be cited to a better source, it should be removed entirely.
- The last paragraph is tagged as needing a citation.