Template:Did you know nominations/1975 Holton-Arms School Senior Prom


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

1975 Holton-Arms School Senior Prom

 * ... that one attendee described the 1975 Holton-Arms School Senior Prom (pictured) as "dynamite, virtual dynamite"?
 * ALT1: ... that the 1975 Holton-Arms School Senior Prom (pictured) cost $1300 to organize?
 * ALT2: ... that Susan Ford had planned on attending the 1975 Holton-Arms School Senior Prom (pictured) with Gardner Britt but ended up going with Billy Pifer instead?
 * ALT3:... that the 1975 Holton-Arms School senior prom was the only high school dance held in the White House?
 * Reviewed: forthcoming Template:Did you know nominations/Rustriningsih

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 01:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough (created and nominated on 7 December), long enough (prose over 2,000 characters), and neutral. The images are freely licensed (Public Domain as work as White House photographers). QPQ satisfied. However there are 2 issues: 1) The citation/attribution needs work: most of the content appears to derive from the Vanity Fair article, which is not cited at all in the Background section (the "Presidential Child's Play" reference is trivial). 2) None of the proposed hooks are interesting to a broad audience: most readers will have never heard about the school (Wikipedia has a global audience), and would care even less about Susan Ford's high school dates, and the cost is trivia. The most obvious "hooky" fact is ignored: this was the only school prom ever held at the White House. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with Animalparty. The fact that the prom was held at the White House should definitely form part of the hook. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the contrary, I think the hooks work very well because they're banal, especially ALT2. They make the article stand out and clearly invite the reader to find out more. Kim Post (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I appreciate the review but agree with Kim Post that the banality of the hooks is the only point of interest. The definition of "interesting" is "likely to arouse curiosity." To say "X was the only high school dance held at the White House" is not a hook but is, rather, just a one-sentence summary of the article and - as such - unlikely to produce many clicks since the gist has already been communicated in the DYK box. In other words, the suggested hook is likely to inform but is unlikely to "arouse curiosity." The current hooks are unlikely to inform but are likely to "arouse curiosity." Our primary mandate with hooks, as I understand it, is arousal, not information (the articles themselves fulfill that role). Chetsford (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The banality of the hooks is also the only reason I clicked on this one, but in this case IMO that is a negative point. I am trying to start QPQ, and my only point of clicking was to learn why could a US high school prom be of international audience interest? I suppose to it would be fair to say that it would have be be a very notable prom in order to hang a whole hook on it. I would have to think that a broad audience would be more hooked if the White House is mentioned. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Like it or not, the fact remains that DYK rules say The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. A hook deliberately written to be banal flouts this final requirement, and even if passed here would get shot down later in the process. An interesting hook should be possible, and what makes this prom notable—and the sole reason that it exists as an article on Wikipedia—is that it took place at the White House. Aside from that, Chetsford has still not edited the article to address the rest of Animalparty's review: the Good Housekeeping source, written a week after the Vanity Fair one, references VF, so the VF source should be used for those particular facts. (I just pulled the "Presidential Child's Play" reference as not useful.) Beyond that, the article has a significant factual flaw: the prom was attended by 74 Holton-Arms seniors and their dates: there were not 74 students as the article claims, but (presumably) twice that number of attendees. This also needs to be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read "74 students" in the article to mean "74 students of the Holton-Armes School" which is supported by the source, but I could see how it could be read as "74 students of any school" which, you're correct, is not. I've removed that from the article. I've corrected the other item vis a vis Vanity Fair and added an alt. Chetsford (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Chetsford, the 74 were Holton-Arms students; they were the senior class, but each of them had dates. Here's what the Gerald Ford Presidential Library had to say (strikes me as a reliable site): After going through a receiving line in the Grand Hall the 74 seniors and their dates headed to the State Floor. Vanity Fair also has 74 high-school seniors and their dates, quoting a reporter from Mademoiselle. Why not specify 74 seniors and their dates? Removing that information from the article entirely seems short-sighted. I've struck the original hook and ALTs; Animalparty, any thoughts on the new ALT3? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I don't mind adding it back in. Chetsford (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT3, and also that the remaining issues from the original review have been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 checks out in the reference, is interesting to a broad audience, and seems to be a good compromise considering the discussion above. Rest of the review per Animalparty. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)