Talk:Byrnihat

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 Dclemens1971 talk 03:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Byrnihat was ranked by IQAir as the world's most polluted city in 2024?

• • ALT1: ... that Byrnihat was ranked by CREA as India's most polluted city in 2023 and by IQAir as the world's most polluted city the next year? Source:
  • Reviewed:

KnowDeath (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC).

• Article is new enough and long enough. No copyright violation detected. No QPQ required. Article appears to be within policy. However, there are a few issues needed addressing. One is the population of the city given in the infobox. The 2011 report may have listed the population as 298 people but current news articles such as (this https://www.dw.com/en/india-how-a-small-town-topped-global-pollution-charts/a-73198598 ) estimate the population at about 50,000 people. This is given in the article, but the info-box maintains the old figure of 298 people which in my view misrepresents this topic area. The second issue is with the hook. The hook fact needs to give credit to where the statistic is coming from. The hook fact should credit a report by IQAir so this doesn't end up at WP:ERRORS.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  So should I remove the population number from the infobox? And are you sure it's necessary to credit IQAir? Most hooks don't seem to credit the original source of their information. KnowDeath (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@KnowDeath: You could remove the population from the table; or alternatively update with more current information. As for DYK practice, this is your first nomination so I don't think you are in a position to determine what is normal at DYK review. I've been reviewing at DYK for over ten years, and contribute here regularly. This is not an unusual criticism/requirement in hook review. As an exceptional claim attribution is necessary in this case because without it this could end up at WP:ERRORS (statistics are gathered on global pollution by multiple entities and different reports on global pollution from the same time period may have different city rankings). This is a routine practice in hooks where the fact is extraordinary and could be challenged. Attribution greatly decreases the chances of the hook being pulled from the main page. Hook promoters are not likely to select hooks that could get challenged so modifying the hook slightly (just say "ranked by IQAir") is the best way forward. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I've done both. KnowDeath (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• All issues have been resolved. Approving both hooks. Both are interesting and verified to reliable sources with inline citations. The promoter may choose which of the two hooks they prefer at their discretion.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)