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 SonOfYoutubers talk 01:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Michelle Pfeiffer stares back?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Visit Myanmar Year
  • Comment: Driveby nom intended for WP:DYKAPRIL.

Launchballer 00:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• I understand that Pfeiffer is apparently a popular actress (although I'm not very familiar with her), and that this is intended to be an April Fools' hook, but as currently written, I can't see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. Do you have any other, more "normal" hook proposals? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Quit Dreaming and Get on the Beam that 5000+ views a day says a broad audience knows who she is and that therefore almost any hook would pass the 'intriguing' part of WP:DYKINT. I'm not going to refuse to suggest a "normal" hook at this point, but given that pop music hooks do poorly at WP:DYKSTATS (I was shocked by how badly Push 2 Start did), I strongly recommend that we go with an April Fool's hook for this (albeit maybe not this one).--Launchballer 01:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, two other editors objected to the hook (not just me), so it seems that there is loose consensus at least to move away from this angle or even from an April Fools' angle entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good hook that creates plenty of intrigue and should get plenty of hits, indeed, it would probably do better if it wasn't used on April Fool's Day (when a bunch of questionable hooks tend to degrade overall impact) but just used as a standard quirky. Not every hook needs to spell out every aspect of the topic - probably half the hooks posted omit detail to create more interest. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with Naruto, this is not "interesting". The only thought that I am left with after reading it is "where's the rest of the sentence?" And just because a broad audience knows who someone is does not mean that "almost any hook" would be intriguing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter hooks tend to be more effective, and omitting the quote marks would only be allowed on April Fool's Day.

ALT1: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer has been described as "a breath of fresh air"?

ALT2: ... that a Michelle Pfeiffer performance typically lasts about 4 minutes and 31 seconds?

ALT3: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer has been described as "stylish"?

ALT4: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer has been described as possessing "a cresting emotionality grand enough to fill the tallest IMAX screen"?

ALT5: ... that Michelle Pfeiffer was inspired by Michelle Pfeiffer?--Launchballer 16:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT5 seems interesting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with ALT5. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer needed. Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I will review it in a few hours. NeoGaze (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - ?

Overall: The article was promoted to good article status on June 6, and was nominated for DYK on June 12, which is in the allowed seven-day period. It is long enough with 5313 characters (889 words) of readable prose size. The article is neutral in tone, and no case of copyright violations, plagiarism or close paraphrasing have been found. I found a couple of sourcing issues that I detail below. No image is used. The one required QPQ has already been done for this nomination.

I found several issues mostly related to sourcing and the interest of several hooks.

• Some sources lead to online stores like Tidal and Apple music, which seems dubious to me. These should be replaced with better sources if possible.
• "Composition" section talks little about the actual composition of the song. The first lines could be moved to "Background and release" and the rest comprises the opinions of several critics and reviewers, which would be more appropiate on the "Critical reception" section. This is not strictly an issue, but something you may want to improve.
• The source of the following statement doesn't support its content: On top of guitars and drums, Cain laments the line, "Wide awake all night thinking about you / Do you think of me too?"
• The original hook (ALT0) seems too ambiguous to me, and doesn't clearly state its attribution (Salvatore Maicki called it...). I'm also unsure if it will be interesting enough to a general audience. I will not outright cross it out, but I think it needs to be reworked at least.
• ALTs 1 to 3 are even less interesting, and unlike the original, I don't think they can be reworked.

Once the sourcing issues are fixed, we can proceed with ALTs 4 and 5, if the original is not modified. Best wishes! NeoGaze (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:VENDOR, "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages [...] in order to verify such things as titles and running times", and although non-commercial sources may be preferred, they are not required. ALT0 was shot down at WT:DYK (linked earlier in this page), so I'm disinclined to workshop it. The source of "On top of [...] me too?" does indeed verify that claim (“Wide awake all night thinking about you/Do you think of me too?” she wails with exposed clarity atop guitars and drums) and I'll let @Locust member: rearrange the article.--Launchballer 11:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and feedback, then I can approve of ALT4 and 5 already. I also added a wikilink to the Michelle Pfeiffer own article in ALT5. NeoGaze (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I do not think that ALT5 must run on DYKAPRIL, and in fact it could easily run as a regular quirky hook. We should not be giving out DYKAPRIL slots like candy especially when there are so few of them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I was surprised to see ALT4 being promoted when there was a clear preference on this page for ALT5. With the benefit of a few days, I can live with ALT4 as a regular hook, though an April Fool's ALT5 will do so much better at DYKSTATS...--Launchballer 20:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 and SonOfYoutubers: I withdrew my objection, what else needs to happen here?--Launchballer 22:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we just have to wait for someone to promote this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I'm a little confused. By withdraw, you mean that you allow for this to be promoted now? If so, what do you mean by "what else needs to happen here"? Is there any other issues that need to be resolved? If not, then I should be fine promoting it, because I never reviewed or edited, I just promoted before. Owing to the previous comment, I chose ALT4 over ALT5 because I just don't see how ALT5 is super interesting. I mean, I'd assume an album named after a person is going to be inspired by said person, but maybe there's a different reason it was named. Either way, easiest way to resolve this is asking simply: would you prefer I promote ALT4 or ALT5? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I allow for this to be promoted now. (Honestly, given that this turns two months old today, my preference is that it runs.) I have no problem with either being promoted.--Launchballer 00:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]