Note to the reviewer: the article is currently on the Recent deaths section of ITN, but as the disqualification only applies to bolded links in blurbs and not to RD entries, the article remains eligible for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
ALT1... that the death of a squirrel named Peanut was a Republican rallying cry in the last days before the 2024 United States presidential election? Source: Washington PostThriley (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Grammar! "a" squirrel Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Overall: Oh, that squirrel... I followed this when it was at ITN and in the pre-election hullaballoo. Article is new enough and long enough. Hook facts are all cited and interesting, though my preference is for ALT0. Earwig flags a fair bit, but they seem to be properly attributed quotes. Good to go. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if the alt1 hook runs. Far more consequential than making money for the owner. It was the hook I was going to use as the article creator before this drive by nomination was made. Thriley (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it's me being tired of American politics, but going with a politics-related angle feels cheap at this point. It's like all those previous hooks about COVID: just because a hook is about COVID or US politics does not automatically make it interesting, especially when there's oversaturation both on and off-Wikipedia. Endorsing ALT0 instead as more likely to get readership interest, especially to those not interested in politics. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Due to concerns raised at WT:DYK, the nomination has been pulled for now. Consensus is leaning against ALT1 (the promoted hook); however, a concern has been raised that ALT0 (the hook consensus was leaning in favor of) may not be accurate or supported, and thus may need revision. The discussion did not discuss ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
My bad, I changed the Express Tribune and New York Post with the Telegraph and misread it. The sentence now ends with just the Express Tribune. Should be supported now.--Launchballer 23:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think ignoring a citation to an in-depth article from a reliable source and instead using a four paragraph summary of a NYPost article from a random Pakistani newspaper which doesn't actually reflect the source just for the sake of a DYK hook is what editors should be doing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I skimmed WP:RSN for "Express Tribune" and saw nothing of concern nor any indication in the article it came from the New York Post, but I've put the Telegraph back. Hmm, "helped steer viewers to its owner's OnlyFans account", cited to Vanity Fair...--Launchballer 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I've been out of it the last few days. ALT3: ... that a squirrel helped steer viewers to its owner's OnlyFans account?--Launchballer 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that squirrel... I followed this when it was at ITN and in the pre-election hullaballoo. Article is new enough and long enough. Hook facts are all cited and interesting, though my preference is for ALT0. Earwig flags a fair bit, but they seem to be properly attributed quotes. Good to go. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Due to concerns raised at WT:DYK, the nomination has been pulled for now. Consensus is leaning against ALT1 (the promoted hook); however, a concern has been raised that ALT0 (the hook consensus was leaning in favor of) may not be accurate or supported, and thus may need revision. The discussion did not discuss ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)