Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Nathan Heidelberg

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 Bruxton (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Nathan Heidelberg

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 06:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Killing of Nathan Heidelberg; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • I shall review this. Due to its length and sensitive nature, I may be taking a couple of days over this review, so if my review looks unfinished, please be patient. Thank you. (Update: initial review now complete). Storye book (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this article, which, sadly, had to be written.

  • The article is fully sourced, and I accept that the blockquote and the bullet points have a citation above or below, which covers them.
  • Earwig finds a lot of similarities, but they are either common short phrases, or quotations which are clearly marked in the article. So no problem there.
  • ALT0: This hook works well, but in many countries, "cop" is disrespectful, and this incident has mourning families still living. I would accept ALT0 if "cop" could be changed to "police officer". Normally I would request that only a short representative part of the hook should be linked to the article name, but in this case, which is a shocking subject, I think that the long link needs to stand out like that. Hook cited in article.
  • ALT1: This hook works fine, and it's cited in the article.
  • ALT2: Misleading. Although this hook is true, and it is cited, it distracts from the main point and subject matter of the article, If you just read the hook and don't click on it, it looks as if the officer could have had a heart attack or something. So no.
  • ALT3: Misleading. The hook is ambiguous - does it mean the same local church building and community - or just the same religious denomination so that maybe the two men had never previously met? This hook might work if it said that the men had actually met and knew each other, being part of the same church community, but the article doesn't not say that. So no.
  • ALT4: Too complex, long and distracting with detail. 181 characters. If there were no other hook, this one would have to be acceptable because it's true, but there are more hooky hooks here.
  • ALT5: True, but it distracts from the distress caused to all parties in this incident, while at the same time using the disrespectful (in some countries) word, "cop". When we read the article, we have compassion for all parties, But this hook seems to belie that compassion (even though that is not its intentiion).. So no.
Summary

I have struck out ALTs 2, 3 and 5 (but please reinstate them if you disagree). That leaves ALTs 0, 1 and 4. I believe that ALT1 is the best because it is direct, easy to take in, and it represents the main point of the article accurately. If "cop" could be replaced with "police officer", then I believe that this nomination could be good to go with ALTs 0, 1 and 4, with strong preference for ALT0. Storye book (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done My preference was ALT0 always, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Daniel Case.
with ALTs 0, 1 and 4, with strong preference for ALT0. Storye book (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)