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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• ... that The Idea of Pakistan answers 'What is Pakistan?'? Source: The central question that Stephen Cohen grapples with in his book, The Idea of Pakistan, is what is Pakistan?

• Reviewed: Chinese used vehicle exporting

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 11:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC).

• Article new and long enough, seems well sourced. Hook is sourced and in article, and interesting. A little rewording and it would probably make a great April Fools hook, but it works anyway. Just waiting on QPQ. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif, QPQ added. (What was the alternate April Fools hook that you had in mind?) DTM (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Something like "... that in 2004, Stephen Cohen answered the question 'What is Pakistan?'?" or "... that we now have an answer to 'What is Pakistan?'?", because they'd sound outlandish. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif, well they are good hooks and not that outlandish (nothing wrong in outlandish either)! ALT 2 is nice and short! Both seem policy compliant to a large extent. I think ALT0 could be stricken off and let these two be the final hooks.

• ALT1:... that in 2004, Stephen Cohen answered the question 'What is Pakistan?'?"
• ALT2:... that we now have an answer to 'What is Pakistan?'?"

What do you say? DTM (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Very cool, this may need a new reviewer since I kind of proposed the alts, though. Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• ALT3:... that in 2004, author Stephen Cohen answered the question, What is Pakistan? --evrik ^(talk) 01:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• New reviewer requested. DTM (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'm approving this, with evrik's ALT4, HOWEVER: there are some problems, and I'm tackling them. For starters, I'm going through making copy edits that should have been caught a long time ago, DiplomatTesterMan, and you should look at this also. Next, I am puzzled by the review from that dude from Qurtuba U (and not just because he does the "it's not that the author is Jewish but..."), which is contradictory and sloppy. The quote from the review in the lead should have said "fallen short of its ideals", not "ideas"--but the review has that weird phrase. Besides, the review says weird contradictory things like, "The major part of the study (seven out of total nine chapters) is of routine, but a well articulated and carefully manipulated view of Pakistan’s past from its origin till the present military rule that has experienced uneven economic growth, political chaos, sectarian violence, and several crises with its much larger neighbor India including nuclear ones. Cohen's facts are questionable, his logic manipulative, and his omissions are deliberate and meaningful." So the book is good and solid, but questionable and manipulative? DTM, you may want to rethink how much prominence this reviewer is given: these citations might not survive a GA review. Anyway, for DYK it's good enough, though I am not done copy editing. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Hmm. I guess we're good to go, though I wouldn't be surprised if not all readers are happy. After all, the book may answer the question of what Pakistan is, but the article gives no inkling of what the book says that Pakistan is. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)