- 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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Sophisticatedevening (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Titan Fleischmann
- ... that when Titan Fleischmann's grandmother first heard her future grandson's name, she cried out of fear that he would be bullied for it? Source: 1
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/History of Chinese Americans in Idaho
- Comment: Open to any suggestions on the wording.
JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC).
@JTtheOG: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact is in article and checks out. I think the wording of the hook is okay, personally. I'm not 100% comfortable with "offensive line that allowed just three sacks" from the article as being a direct rip, but I also don't know if there's another good way to say it and convey to the reader that three sacks in a season is not a lot. I want to hear from you first before I approve. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Thanks for taking this review. All that really comes to mind is switching out words like "allowed" for "gave up", "conceded" or "surrendered", or replacing "sack" with "quarterback sack". How about
He led an offensive line which surrendered only three quarterback sacks all year long.
? JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC) - Pinging @BeanieFan11: for any other suggestions... JTtheOG (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's really that many ways to word that sentence. I'm fine with "He led an offensive line which surrendered only three quarterback sacks all year long", though I'd cut "quarterback" in "quarterback sacks" – I rarely hear them called by the full name. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done! Thanks to both of you all. JTtheOG (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Friendly ping @Sammi Brie: in the case this hasn't been seen... JTtheOG (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think there's really that many ways to word that sentence. I'm fine with "He led an offensive line which surrendered only three quarterback sacks all year long", though I'd cut "quarterback" in "quarterback sacks" – I rarely hear them called by the full name. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
New reviewer needed unless Sammi Brie returns. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Wow I missed this. I was sick at the end of the year/first couple of days of 2026 and I guess this fell through the cracks.
The page looks good with that change. My bad on the delay. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Wow I missed this. I was sick at the end of the year/first couple of days of 2026 and I guess this fell through the cracks.
- Hello! Thanks for taking this review. All that really comes to mind is switching out words like "allowed" for "gave up", "conceded" or "surrendered", or replacing "sack" with "quarterback sack". How about
