Template:Did you know nominations/The Children's Book of Virtues

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Children's Book of Virtues

(

)

... that two U.S. best-seller lists initially classified The Children's Book of Virtues as nonfiction, but later moved it to their fiction charts?

Source: "Book Notes: Fiction, Nonfiction or Both?". The New York Times. 1995-11-08. p. C.17. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via ProQuest.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/E-Defense
Comment: One of two follow-ups to my expansion campaign for fellow DYK stalwart The Book of Virtues, the other being The Moral Compass. My final candidate in this arena before Milton's impact where I live; wish me safety, take care, and I'll see you back. (With special thanks to this selection's AFC approver, ~~Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs)~~ Bkissin (talk · contribs).)

Moved to mainspace by Slgrandson (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC).

I was wondering why I got pinged to a random DYK, now I know! :D Sir MemeGod  12:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod: Sorry, I mixed up my reviewers days ago; see above for correction. (You actually approved Children's, while Bkissin approved Compass.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Is somebody working to review this DYK? If not, I would do so. @Sir MemeGod: @Bkissin:@Slgrandson:Pardon the pinging. ProfGray (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

New enough and long enough. Earwig gives 9.3% chance, but the only results showing are the title. Hook fact is cited to the New York Times, which confirms it (accessed via ProQuest). Looks good to go! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)