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 97198 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC).
The article meets DYK requirements and is free from close paraphrasing. QPQ still pending. Image is good and suitable. The hook is somewhat niche and assumes that the audience is familiar with the names mentioned. I saw in the article this particular quote: described as the most frequently performed choral work from Brazil in the U.S., which I think would make for a better hook. Maybe you can propose a hook based on this quote instead? I verified in in the source, although it may need to include the term "likely". This proposal could still mention Aguiar if you want him to be mentioned. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the ping. If we use your suggestion, we can go with something like:
*ALT1: that Salmo 150 is described as likely the most frequently performed Brazilian choral work in the U.S.?
ALT2: that Salmo 150, a setting of Psalm 150 by the Brazilian composer Ernani Aguiar, is described as likely the most frequently performed Brazilian choral work in the U.S.? Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I think we could go with ALT2, but like I mentioned earlier, it may be a good idea to mention "likely" since the source has that qualifier. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Good point. I did that just now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It's wrong that an image has to be about the subject, - it has to be about the hook, compare Natacha Aguilar de Soto. I think the image is attractive to a broad readership: unusual setting, many performers.
I think that being programmed at a well-noticed spot in Europe (first concert tour of Thomanerchor after pandemic, first tour with new conductor - who as DYK said - is the first Swiss and first Catholic to be appointed to the position after Bach) is much stronger and precise than a vague US statement for a piece published by a US publisher. Isn't that a bit promotional even?
It also informs our readers that the choir with a 800 years tradition - which many readers will recognize - turns to 20th century music also now in a programmatic way (and later they sang 21st century music).
Two times Brazil in ALt2 is boring, no? I don't want such a thing on the Main page with my signature, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not see ALT2 as being promotional because it is not serving as an advertisement for any particular performance, it is merely giving a fact about the work. Like I mentioned in my original review, ALT3 is unsuitable because it is too reliant on knowledge and information that regular readers may not know. Regular readers would not understand the context about the first Swiss/first Catholic/first post-pandemic performance things considering they're not even in the hook. By contrast, readers will easily understand "this Brazilian chorale work has been performed more than any other in the U.S." It's a straightforward and easy to understand hook that is not reliant on extensive insider knowledge on classical music.
Another issue with ALT3 is that it would be reliant on knowledge of Thomanerchor. You stated that this choir, which has an 800 years tradition, would be a choir that many would recognize. I think you may be overestimating general audiences' familiarity with classical music groups because I have doubts that most readers, especially internationally, would recognize it. Even in Germany it seems to be a relatively niche group, as over the last year it seems to be getting around 100 views per day on the German Wikipedia, which seems pretty low. This is nothing against the Thomanerchor and I'm sure the group is very talented and much appreciated among choir circles. It's just that the hook is too reliant on insider information. By contrast, ALT2's main post is easily understandable even if the reader doesn't know who Aguiar is. As such, ALT2 remains the best option here.
I will be honest. I really wanted to approve the image. I think it's a nice image and helps the hook. If the image can be verified to have been taken during the actual performance of Salmo 150, I think I can approve the picture. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
To begin in the end: The image was of course not taken during Salmo 150. Never ever would I take a pic during a concert performance even if not forbidden. It was taken during the encore, Dona nobis pacem, an arrangement of the famous Air by Georg Christoph Biller, the 16th conductor after Bach.
Further up: The audience doesn't have to know anything about Thomanerchor, because there is a link. Those who know can pass, those who don't can learn something. That is the real charm about Wikipedia and links: that we don't have to bore those already familiar.
Further up: the hook doesn't say anything about Reize being the first Swiss and first Catholic, I just reminded you of an earlier DYK, for context. It says "18th conductor after Bach", and whoever doesn't know Bach will probably not be interested in any psalm settings old or new, so should not be lured into this article. - ALT2 would need rewording to find my approval, and would be much better if a fact, but now it's only something likely, without a solid ref, only the composer's catalogue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
... whoever doesn't know Bach will probably not be interested in any psalm settings old or new, so should not be lured into this article. That is not how DYK works. Hooks are supposed to be appealing to all sorts of readers, not just people familiar with a topic. Suggesting that the hook should only attract Bach fans but no one else goes against the spirit of DYK's requirement of hooks appealing to broad audiences. To repeat: the issue with ALT3 is that the hook's main fact is reliant on knowing Thomanerchor. This does not mean that a broad interest hook cannot mention Thomanerchor. The goal is that the hook could easily be understood even if readers don't know Thomanerchor. With ALT3, the hook only makes sense if the reader knows who Thomanerchor, same with "18th conductor after Bach". A different hook angle could mention Thomanerchor, but the hook fact needs to be interesting in such a way that a reader that doesn't know about Thomanerchor will still get it.
I'm open to variations or ALT2, but I really don't think the Thomanerchor angle is going to work out here for reasons I mentioned above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) program - could be used as ref. - After edit conflict: Do you see any ref for ALT2 other than the composer's catalogue? What in that people who don't know about the importance of choir and conductor can follow links did you not understand? The image might make them interested, don't you think so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding "The audience doesn't have to know anything about Thomanerchor, because there is a link. Those who know can pass, those who don't can learn something." - My feeling is that if we give readers a link to something else, they may be inclined to click on that instead of the bolded link. Alternatively, even if someone doesn't know that the Thomanerchor is a choir, they may decide not to click on the link at all, because it would require clicking at least twice (once to open the Thomanerchor article and once to open the Salmo 150 article). This could theoretically be solved by clarifying what the Thomanerchor is within the hook itself, e.g. "... that the first tour of the Thomanerchor choir with the 18th conductor after Bach began with Salmo 150..." – Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I am surprised that you think that seeing the image anybody might not see that it shows a choir. I don't mind readers clicking on the choir and the conductor - almost the opposite. When I was new here, I wrote articles about singers only to be able to mention Bach cantatas, and I wrote the article about this 1.5 minute psalm setting to also mention an exceptional concert tour, - quite sure that it deserves more attention than the little cute piece alone. Please explain what's the difference between your suggestion and ALT3? If you like that one, you could approve it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, my bad, I did not notice that the image showed the choir. I should clarify that the only thing I proposed was to add the word "choir" after Thomanerchor in ALT3. So like this:
I'm still a bit wary of just linking to Thomanerchor without any further explanation, which is why I proposed that. If you don't mind readers clicking on the links, that is fine. However, people may choose to click those links instead of (or in addition to) the bolded link to Salmo 150. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for not noticing. I'm not so happy with "chor choir". How do you feel about a caption such as "Choir in concert at ..." instead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. However, something else that just occurred to me - I'm not sure if many people even know what the Thomanerchor is, so they may not find it interesting. This is also part of why I suggested clarifying "the Thomanerchor choir" in the hook. Although, judging from the above discussion, it may be that ALT2 is more interesting than ALT3, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
My thread of thought goes like this: The image is interesting, I guess to anybody. They may want to find out more, even what Thomanerchor is if they don't know already. Why not? ALT2 is about the piece and only about the piece, and it's US relevance which is no surprise given a US publisher. ALT3 is about the piece and European significance, and about a new start with music from the other side of the globe as a program. - In numbers: I guess in ALT2, the piece would get 1,5k views (and the psalm 500). With the image, I estimate 1,2k for the piece + 500 each for choir, conductor, composer and psalm, - richer if you ask me. Without image all half of course. - In a nutshell: our audience wants images, and once hooked by an image, we can tell them more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the image would work great if it was about the Thomaerchor itself, but this hook isn't about them. It's a hook about Salmo 150. As much as I wanted the image, as you mentioned, the image wasn't even taken while they were performing Salmo 150, so the only way the image could work is if the hook involved Thomanerchor. And as previously mentioned, I really don't think the Thomanerchor angle is working out here. As for the image, even if the hook were approved, there's no guarantee that the image would be promoted anyway. We all want our hooks to be in the image spot, but the discretion remains with the promoter, not with the nominator or even the reviewer. You have to be prepared for the possibility that the hook would be promoted without the image, which would make the "the audience wants to know more about the image" point moot. If you really don't like ALT2, can you please try proposing a different angle here? I am open to a non-ALT2 hook, but the Thomaerchor angle is a non-starter in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Look, I even gave a view calculation for no image, - why do you tell me that there's the possibility of no image?? I think we heard you. Should I ask for a different reviewer? Epicgenius could review ALT3A because it's only a rewording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This is just based on the recent discussions on WT:DYK asking why their hooks were promoted without images even though they asks if they could have the hooks in the image slot. The response was that the decision on whether to include the image or not is up to the promoter, who may either consider or decline the nominator's request. Even if the nominator or reviewer asked for the image to be approved, it is ultimately up to the promoter to decide whether or not they would grant that request. My point was simply that just because a nomination has an image is no guarantee that it will be promoted with one. Indeed, I'm speaking from experience here: I have had a number of nominations in the past that had images, but most were promoted without them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Epic can probably take a look at ALT3a if you want. ALT3a isn't a variation of ALT2 so he's allowed to do so. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I formally question ALT2, because there's no solid source. The source given even says "Although such a statement is difficult to verify ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Gerda, I'm a bit confused as to why you are opposing ALT2 now when it was you who added the information to the article in the first place. If you had doubts about the statement's accuracy, why did you include it in the article in the first place? As for ALT3A, I don't think it works either. Maybe we just need to move on from the Thomanerchor angle? There's probably something else that can be proposed about the subject here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It's in the article as in the source, - with "described" and "likely", and that's vague and not good for the only thing we say. I like to educate a bit about some more than only the 1.5 minute piece, - we run Did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Overall: @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for proposing the new hooks. ALT3A is okay, but ALT4 and ALT4A are stronger hooks to me. My personal recommendation is that one of these two hooks be run instead. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The article meets DYK requirements and is free from close paraphrasing. QPQ still pending. Image is good and suitable. The hook is somewhat niche and assumes that the audience is familiar with the names mentioned. I saw in the article this particular quote: 
In the interest of this moving forward, I am donating my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Space Shuttle orbiter to meet the QPQ requirement. As there are no remaining article issues anymore the article is now good to go. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for proposing the new hooks. ALT3A is okay, but ALT4 and ALT4A are stronger hooks to me. My personal recommendation is that one of these two hooks be run instead. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)