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)  00:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• ... that the historian Malcolm Gaskill writes about witchcraft?
  Source: Malcolm Gaskill profile, University of East Anglia
  • Reviewed: Isaac Sailmaker

Created by Moonraker ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC). reply

• Article is new, long enough and neutral. It cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports moderate text similarities commenting "copyvio unlikely". The hook is well-formatted and interesting. Its length is within limit. Its fact is accurate with inline citation. QPQ was done. Good to go. CeeGee 12:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for the review, CeeGee. The text similarities are mostly names of books and universities and can be checked here. Moonraker ( talk) 02:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply

  • @ Moonraker and CeeGee: Given that there are apparently 11+ other people who fit that description at some point in time, maybe we want to be a little more specific? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • ALT1: ... that witchcraft historian Malcolm Gaskill documented a real-life 17th-century witch hunt in Springfield, Massachusetts?

• @ Theleekycauldron: Thanks for your in-depth knowledge. Checked ALT1, and found it fine. Good to go. CeeGee 13:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply

CeeGee and theleekycauldron I am removing the strike-through of the main hook, as there is no DYK rule that insists on uniqueness. The only objections I see to ALT1 is that Gaskill has written more about witch-hunts in England, he isn’t exactly a “ witchcraft historian”, and you would surely expect a historian to write about real life? Other than that it’s harmless, except that it strikes me as less hooky. I see no good reason for CeeGee to be wanting to impose a rather feeble new hook. Let’s leave it for the uploader to decide. Moonraker ( talk) 16:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• @ Moonraker: ALT1 isn't my favourite either, I'll grant. But as for ALT0, WP:DYK#gen3a says that hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. If we were to broaden the definition of "unusual" to include a hook in which no fewer than eleven other names could replace the bolded name without a hitch, I fear the term would be functionally meaningless at DYK. Would there be another hook you'd prefer? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply

theleekycauldron, you have completely lost me here. The key word there is unusual, it does not say unique in all history. When you say “no fewer than eleven other names could replace the bolded name without a hitch”, you might like to reflect that that is eleven out of something over eight billion. We could say a historian who writes about witchcraft is nearly as rare as hen’s teeth. Moonraker ( talk) 05:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Moonraker: By striking-through the main hook, I intended to emphasize the ALT1, which I found better. Sorry, no problem if you insist on the main one. I am out of the discussion now. CeeGee 08:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, CeeGee, not wanting to insist, it isn’t up to me. Moonraker ( talk) 14:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply