Template:Did you know nominations/Battle Royale


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Issues will not be addressed and no one seems interested in doing so or able to; closing as unsuccessful

Battle Royale

 * ... that the Japanese novel Battle Royale was rejected in the final round of the 1997 Japan Horror Fiction Awards due to its backdrop of students killing each other being too reminiscent of the Kobe child murders committed the previous year?

Improved to Good Article status by Xfansd (talk) and Bluesphere (talk). Nominated by Bluesphere (talk) at 05:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg The age and length are good and everything seems within policy. Hook is interesting and cited. This looks good to go. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The hook, at 237 characters, is well over the absolute maximum of 200 characters (spaces count in the total) allowed for DYK hooks, and has been struck. Please provide a new ALT hook that is short enough to qualify. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to step up and provide one that is 199 characters...
 * ALT1: ... that Battle Royale was rejected in the final round of the 1997 Japan Horror Fiction Awards, as its setting was too similar to the Kobe child murders committed the previous year?
 * Raymie (t • c) 05:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll go with Raymie's suggestion.  Blue sphere  09:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Reiterating that this is not ready for promotion (despite it having been briefly promoted). The "as" part of the hook is problematic, since the article doesn't seem to support the assertion: only one of the judges seem to be alluding to the child murders, according to the first Reception paragraph, with the other two judges rejecting the novel for other reasons entirely. The particular claim here is not supported by an inline source citation at the end of the relevant sentence, while an earlier claim in Background and publication says only that one of the preliminary committee members "later suspected" that the judges' rejection was due to the Kobe child murders, but that's grossly inadequate. Cwmhiraeth suggested "may have been rejected", but it's not sufficient in my eye given the sourced wording in the article. Another hook angle that might be pursued is that the book was considered the best submitted but was rejected anyway, yet it became a bestseller when ultimately published two years later. (It does seem a bit odd to be talking about an award for unpublished manuscripts to begin with; just how notable is it, anyway?) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Anyone can read the relevant chapter of the book cited in the reception section for the judges' comments here at Amazon.com. This is also what The Japan Times article that is used to cite the proposed hook in the Background and publication section is referencing. Hopefully this helps clarify things and/or sparks a re-wording of the hook. Xfansd (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this DYK entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesphere (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bluesphere, pings only work when you sign your post; I happened to see your recent edit on my watchlist and clicked out of curiosity. The re-wording of the hook is up to you or Xfansd, and depends on the angle you want to take with the information in the article. Whatever the sources may or may not say, the article needs to have the specific information for it to be usable in a hook. As I pointed out, the ALT1 hook is not supported in the article; I think I was clear above where the claims were lacking the necessary sourcing. You will need to have any necessary sourcing added. Please be sure to post here when that is done. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately am stumped to continue this process. If no one can take up the mantle here and closing is the only other option right now, so be it. Thanks for your time.  Blue sphere  05:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)