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: rejected by SL93 (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Voices of Music has been regarded as "the most popular early music ensemble in the United States, and one of the most popular music ensembles of any kind in the world today"? Source: ^[1]
  • ALT1: ... that Voices of Music is distinguished as the first early music group to broadcast their concerts in high-definition video over the internet, providing the worldwide public with numerous free to share concerts? ^[2][3]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The Voices of Music article seems to be a worthy consideration - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Drbogdan (talk). Self-nominated at 21:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Date and length ok. But in terms of the sourcing and attribution. https://greatnonprofits.org/ doesn't seem to be a WP:RS, text presumably written by the group itself. Magnatune as well doesn't seem to cut it as WP:RS. San Francisco Classical Voice is arguably independent from the article subject, but the quote "most popular Early Music ensemble in the United States and one of the most popular music ensembles of any kind in the world today" seems to originate from the VoM website and not representing any sort of journalistic or critical commentary. QPQ needed? --Soman (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soman: (and others) - As OA of the Voices of Music article - Thank You for your comments - and review - the references noted in the article are the best available that I've been able to find at the moment - I've *really* searched for better WP:RS - yes - *entirely* agree - better WP:RS refs are preferred - others are welcome to look for better references of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew this was going to come up in the review, so I spent some time looking into it last night. The statement from SFCV is indeed based on VOM, but more specifically, it's based on their own YouTube analytics: "more than 31 million hits since 2007, and close to 58 thousand subscribers from all over the world, puts Voices of Music (VOM) ahead of even The Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic." That's probably not good enough to support a hook. As for more sources, I'm afraid there aren't many.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} A deep dive shows that the people in this group are connected to university music departments, so there's got to be something out there. I did find the mention of a lecture series event by one of the key members who apparently talks about the group for an hour and goes into depth about them, but I haven't been able to track down the transcript or the video just yet. Not sure that's enough for a hook at this time, but I'll keep looking. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Soman, Drbogdan, Viriditas, where does this nomination stand? It's been over a month since the above posts. Can we get it moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BlueMoonset: I tried to help find sources, but unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find much. Someone should take a look at the current version and determine if it meets the nominator’s requirements. The old version didn’t, and if that’s still the case, the nom should be failed unless someone can find better sources or determine that they have since been added to the article after the nom was made. Also, nom said they didn’t have time to fulfill QPQ requirement. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Viriditas, having just looked at the article and the hook sourcing, there's no way either of the proposed hooks can be allowed on the front page given the sourcing, which is the group itself for the key facts. (They would have supplied the wording to Magnatune and Great Non-Profits; I'm sure it would be similar to what's on the group's own website, or was at the time.) Under the circumstances, without independent sources, I agree that the nomination seems almost certain to fail; the QPQ requirement does need to be fulfilled as the nominator has over five prior DYK nominations, even if the bulk of them were seven or more years ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that the nominator has indicated they will be unable to provide a QPQ and sourcing issues remain, there no longer appears to be a path forward for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]