Template:Did you know nominations/chicken eyeglasses

chicken eyeglasses

 * ... that millions of chickens have viewed life through rose-colored glasses?
 * Reviewed: May Night (Willard Metcalf painting)
 * Comment: On the off chance a reviewer is not familiar with the common expression, the hook here invokes the normally human only metaphor of viewing life while wearing rose-colored glasses.

Created/expanded by Fuhghettaboutit (talk). Self nom at 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the hook is a bit cryptic, and am not sure about the pipe. Maybe something dead simple like what's in the lead. We're after hits, and how it is now could easily be passed up by confused visitors. Something which does not use the word chicken twice would be great, and the bluelink "chicken eyeglasses" will draw hits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this comes from a lack of familiarity with the expression, but it is a very well known expression. To my mind this is a perfect "hook"—maybe the best I've ever had (over many). The famous expression being applied to chickens, as opposed to humans, should draw many people in: "what the hell could that mean, 'chickens wearing rose colored glasses', let me click on this and see." What makes you think saying "chicken eyeglasses" would draw in more people? I don't know what you mean about chicken appearing twice. The use is a piped link. Chicken is only stated once.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The hook plays on a common aphorism, drawing in attention through clever wordplay, rather than presenting a simple fact with no "fun". It's more interesting and intriguing as a result. GRAPPLE   X  03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I trust your judgement. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is fine on expansion and quality. Sources seem totally grand to me. I'd advise not italicising "contact lenses" in the article as it adds emphasis in a manner it shouldn't. Hook is fine as well, so I believe this should be good to go. I don't believe the aphorism will be lost on many people, I think it's quite an international thing. GRAPPLE   X  04:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should this one be held for April 1st? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, I just noticed that there are about 10 verified hooks already at April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know and a few others awaiting verification—o Isn't it already full? It would be a real shame if this was passed over now for April Fools, but then never makes it to the main page because it is shunted aside by others.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, I also think it should be run now. There's no guarantee it would make the next April Fool's, and more candidates to fill those spots will come along in the next three months making it even more unlikely. Plus, the hook would have to be rewritten to sound like something really impossible. I say let this chicken run. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We can run the April Fools hooks in 3 sets of 8 if necessary; however, this is not misleading, so running it now is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)