Template:Did you know nominations/Rewind (2023 film)

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Beta Beta Beta (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Rewind (2023 film)

(

)

... that Rewind became the first Filipino film to surpass ₱900 million at the worldwide box office?

Source: https://entertainment.inquirer.net/539214/dingdong-dantes-marian-riveras-rewind-breaks-new-ph-box-office-record

- ALT1: ... that Rewind marked Dingdong Dantes and Marian Rivera's comeback on the big screen after 13 years?

Source: https://entertainment.inquirer.net/531162/marian-rivera-dingdong-dantes-on-spate-of-breakups-in-show-biz-prayers

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Crossing the Line (McKenzie book)

Created by AdobongPogi (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 15:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC).

Hi, AdobongPogi! I will be reviewing this DYK nom. Expect another response from me later today. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Sources differ between what is stated in this nom and what is used in the article prose. See below.
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @AdobongPogi: The article was listed as GA within the DYK nom cutoff and is long enough. The article is adequately sourced, neutral, and Earwig returns 24.2%, mostly due to short quotes.

However, while the ALT0 hook itself is found in the article prose, the source used to support that hook in this nom and in the article itself is different. You cited a Philippine Star above, when you used an Inquirer (Ref 26) in the prose. For formality, please cite the source you used at this nom in the article itself, or update this nom to reflect the source supporting the hook in the article. ALT1's source you used above is also not cited in the article itself; its prose equivalent is supported by another Inquirer report (Ref 7). I hope that makes sense.

I find both ALT0 and ALT1 interesting, but I prefer ALT0 as it might resonate more with an international audience than ALT1; I'll approve both regardless once the only issue I have is resolved. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to AdobongPogi to reply to the review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Relayed, Dclemens1971 Hey, thanks for you pinging. Updated the DYK source when I used "INQUIRER" to match the citations used in the article. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 05:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Relayed and Dclemens1971: This is long past DYKTIMEOUT so please make a final decision. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:11, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I was only involved here to ping the nominator, but I do think it’s a bit unfair to close the nom when we’re still waiting on the reviewer, not the nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2026

In the absence of a comment from the original reviewer, I believe the concern has been addressed and I am approving ALT0. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)