OK, I'll grant to both of you that, in a perfect world, the interest factor is as important as everything else I've outlined ... but we are so far from a perfect world at DYK and there is so much that needs attention !  DYK has the opportunity to train editors early on and get articles off on the right foot ... instead, procedures and practices (there and at WIKICUP) encourage the churning out of deficient articles to gain perceived prizes.  And what happens to the "interest factor" is the same as what happens to prose and sourcing ... editors learn, indeed are encouraged by reviewers, to pad up their articles so that expansion/length is met, and there is often no regard for whether that padding is a) based on reliable sources, b) relevant to the article, or c) well written.  A similar thing happens when we demand interesting hooks ... that quickly becomes scandalously ridiculous tabloid style hooks, often with BLP issues or MEDRS issues of plain faulty hooks because non-reliable sources are used.  We have admins whose own DYK hooks are inaccurate, and are passed, based on blog sources. Recently. SO ... yes, interesting hooks might be one part of training new and experienced editors and encouraging responsible and policy-compliant editing, but there's a huge iceberg under that tip at DYK that is not being addressed because the few qualified reviewers who are active there cannot keep up with the volume, and we have several entrenched DYK regulars who either don't care about copyvio and reliable sources or simply and still after many years of editing do not even understand core policies.  There is a need to address the whole picture not just "lame hooks" and the whole picture cannot be corrected unless you work with the few clueful regulars there to deal with the several who lack clue, impose their will, and routinely place deficient articles on the mainpage.   DYK will never be eliminated (it probably should be because it is responsible for so much truly bad content that will never be cleaned up), so can we at least work to improve reviewing there ?  A slowdown in volume would help, along with an elimination of QPQ so that knowledgeable reviewers can assure our mainpage is being used responsibly.  But part of that is dealing with the experienced "leaders" at DYK who don't know and won't enforce policy and good editing practice ... work with the few who do.  (Talk)