Template talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
DYK queue status

There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, purge it.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
December 18 1
December 24 1 1
December 25 1
December 26 1
December 29 2 1
December 30 1
December 31 1 1
January 1 2
January 2 1 1
January 6 1
January 7 2 1
January 10 1
January 11 1
January 12 3 2
January 13 2
January 14 3 2
January 15 3 2
January 16 1 1
January 17 1 1
January 20 2
January 21 2 1
January 22 1
January 23 4 2
January 24 1
January 25 2 1
January 26 6 2
January 27 5 1
January 28 3
January 29 4 1
January 30 2 2
January 31 7 5
February 1 5 5
February 2 4 1
February 3 7 3
February 4 3 1
February 5 9 5
February 6 10 3
February 7 8 4
February 8 6 2
February 9 9 1
February 10 8 8
February 11 8 5
February 12 10 5
February 13 7 4
February 14 9 3
February 15 6 3
February 16 5 1
February 17 11 3
February 18 12 4
February 19 8 3
February 20 11 3
February 21 6 1
February 22 17 6
February 23 11 1
February 24 7 1
February 25 6
February 26 9 1
February 27 6 1
February 28 1
Total 287 106
Last updated 05:31, 28 February 2024 UTC
Current time is 12:12, 28 February 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing. Further information can be found at the supplementary guidelines.

Click here to nominate an article

Frequently asked questions

How do I write an interesting hook?

Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below).

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Instructions for reviewers

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

  • Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
  • Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
  • The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
  • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

    Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
  • Save the page.
  • After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Advanced procedures

How to promote an accepted hook

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area
Check list for nomination review completeness
  1. Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: .
  2. Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
    • Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting.
  3. Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
  4. Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
  5. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
  6. Hook should make sense grammatically.
  7. Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
  8. Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
  • In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
  • In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.

Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)

  1. For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
    • Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
  2. Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
    • Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
    • Check that there's a bold link to the article.
  3. If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
  4. Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
  5. Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
    • At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
  6. Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
  1. At the upper left
    • Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • Change |passed= to |passed=yes
  2. At the bottom
    • Just above the line containing

      }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

      insert a new, separate line containing one of the following:
      To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
      To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
      To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
      To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
      To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
      To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
      To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]
    • Also paste the same thing into the edit summary.
  3. Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom.
  4. Save.

For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook.

Handy copy sources:

  • To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
  • To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
  • To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
  • To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
  • To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
  • To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
  • To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hook

  • Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
  • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
    • View the edit history for that page
    • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
    • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
  • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
  • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

  • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

Nominations

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on December 18

Hardpoint (missile defense)

A HiBEX test shot.
A HiBEX test shot.
  • ... that as part of the Hardpoint missile defense system, ARPA developed missiles able to hit 400 g of acceleration and reaction times in milliseconds? Source: Reed
  • ALT 1... that as part of the Hardpoint missile defense system, ARPA developed missiles able to hit almost 400 g of acceleration and reaction times in milliseconds? Source: Reed p3.1
    • Reviewed:

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 22:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hardpoint (missile defense); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @Maury Markowitz: I'm really struggling with this DYK. There seems to be a huge amount of cross over with the subject discussed at Sprint_(missile) to the point where I'm wondering if this article is superfluous? and other than HAPDAR I'm struggling to confirm in any of the sources provided that confirms the name of the system as Hardpoint. Wondering if you might be able to provide any guidance? Seddon talk 03:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Seddon: I can't speak to the Sprint article, I'm not a primary author there. Given this was a completely different project, run by a different organization, built by different companies, with NOTE easily met, I'm not sure there's an issue to correct in this article. The Sprint article also talks about Thunderbird for some reason... the issue would appear to be on that side.
About the second part. If you mean "does the H in HAPDAR mean Hardpoint", then I would point to the IEEE article whose title is "Hardpoint Demonstration Array Radar" and there's any number of independent verifications like this one at MIT. But you mean "I can't verify this thing is called Hardpoint, I only see that in the title of the radar", then there are any number of independent works that verify it to one degree or another, including this one in Daedalus or this mention in the DOD annual report index. It is worth noting that ARPA referred to it both as "hard point" and "hardpoint" in the documents I've found (all linked within), both as the development effort and the overall concept, so it can be very confusing. It's a bit of the "Kleenex" problem.
@Maury Markowitz: hugely appreciate your response. Good enough for me. Will review later today. Seddon talk 15:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: mostly just some comments about the image but we could skip on the image and needs a QPQ. Article could do with a quick copy edit. This was a reasonable number and dependaent are examples I found. Approved. All looks good! I cannot formally approve now since I'm proposing ALT1 to fix the issues raised by @AirshipJungleman29: to wrap this up. Seddon talk 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Sorry for my tardy reply @Seddon:, xmas time is busy! Excellent review. As to the image, my only concern with the one you suggest is that it is "busy", it's in the foreground but there's so much else going on. I think the solution might be to have someone "grey out" (or "white out" is more accurate) the rest of the image so that the missile stands out more. Let me ask over on the commons. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Sorry, this also dropped off my radar. The image was (slightly) updated so the one suggested above could be used. QPQ is Thomas J. Wright (American scholar) Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Seddon: Is this ready to be approved? If not, what needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maury Markowitz:, I am unable to find the "able to hit 400g of acceleration" in the source. Is it derived from the "reached an axial acceleration of about 362g's and about 60g's lateral acceleration" on page 3-8? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: The previous page lists 377 g. The work "almost" has been removed at some point. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: I see "377 g" on page 3-7. Doesn't that mean that the currently proposed hook is not verified by this source? Rjjiii (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maury Markowitz have you seen the above issue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we entertaining the possibility of changes to the hook to correct this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, but the hook needs to match the article, which needs to match the sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I think this is all fixed here. Seddon talk 12:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 25

Zoé Clauzure, Cœur (song)

Created by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Zoé Clauzure; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Full review needed now that QPQs have been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At 1382 bytes, Cœur (song) is too short for the DYK requirement. Moscow Connection, would you prefer to put the nomination on hold until it's expanded or to withdraw it and go with just the Clauzure article? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note that the IPA template in the lede causes unexpected (incorrect) results from DYK check in the form of about 200 extra characters to its count; the "Cœur" article is indeed short of the 1500 prose characters required and will need to be expanded further. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While we're waiting, I'll go ahead and review Zoé Clauzure, which can run alone if the expansion isn't forthcoming. The nomination was a few hours late, though it was New Year's, so some leeway can of course be given. Article prose is above minimum length, but there are some referencing issues. There are a few bare URLs, including a citation to RIA Novosti, which, reliability issues aside, isn't optimal in an English Wikipedia article about a French singer. And what is the purpose of the refn template added in this edit? Hook is within length and verified to the Eurovision press release, though it doesn't capture interest. Maybe consider something that touches on the song's subject of bullying? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The song article is over 1650 characters now if I counted correctly. (I'm not happy with it and I'm going to work on it some more. But I'm probably done for today and will return tomorrow.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • As it stands, some 540 bytes of text are shared between the two articles. I could subtract it off the longer article, which would leave both just barely above the 1,500 mark, but that's too close for comfort in my view. The lyrics quote is presented without context or analysis and doesn't quite satisfy WP:NFC, so I'm inclined to discount its length in addition to the policy issue. Unless you have time for significant work on the song article, I'd suggest going with the Zoé Clauzure article alone, and focus on addressing the referencing issues raised above. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 26

Euan Duthie, Lord Duthie

Created by TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk). Nominated by Storye book (talk) at 18:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Euan Duthie, Lord Duthie; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Per WP:DYKLEN, the minimum length for an article to be eligible for DYK is 1500 characters. This article only barely scrapes by (1503 using my character counting tool). This count includes the rather substantial number of titles he's held, which accounts for a large proportion of the prose. I would appreciate, if possible, even just one more sentence about him that describes what he was doing at these positions or if anyone expressed thoughts about his performance. If not, we can proceed–the article indeed narrowly clears the bar. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you, Pbritti. I have added some more facts (with citation), and according to DYK Check, the article now has 2379 characters. (I had hesitated to add those facts previously, because they are so depressing). Storye book (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Storye book: Upon review, I have BLPCRIME concerns about the addition. Earwig came back good, so I say you just need to consider some other addition to the article. However, work has suddenly precluded me from further reviewing. My sincerest apologies for leaving you here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There was actually nothing wrong with the addition that you are talking about, since no names were mentioned. BLPCRIME refers to individuals whose names are mentioned in the article, but my addition did not mention names. The link in the citation gives only newspaper headlines, which do not contain names. In order to find out those names, you would have to pay a subscription to get beyond the paywall - which is not our concern. However, I have replaced my edit with a general list of typical offences encountered by the sheriff. Our next reviewer will therefore have nothing to worry about. Storye book (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheBishopAndHolyPrince and Storye book: Lots to whinge about here I'm afraid. For starters, Who's Who is listed at WP:RSP as generally unreliable, so would need to be replaced. Refs 2 and 3 are blatant violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and so would need to come out. Pbritti was right to yeet the additions discussed above, but for a different reason; search results are not permitted as references, although I can't find the policy to that effect. More seriously, however is that a) removing the aforementioned would take this well below 1500 characters, b) there are multiple short sections that would need to be expanded per WP:DYKCOMPLETE, and c) I'd even go so far as to suggest that as written this article deserves {{notability}}, but solving the rest should kill two birds with one stone, at which point I will review this in full.--Launchballer 19:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Launchballer: I have removed and replaced the Who's Who ref. I have removed the refs which you called 2 and 3, though my multiple edits have now changed the ref numbers (please kindly give ref source names rather than numbers for clarity next time?). Please let us know which "multiple short sections" you believe to need expansion? The current character count is 1671 characters. Storye book (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Business certainly, and to a lesser extent Military and possibly the first paragraph of Law (although that could easily be knocked into the next one). With hindsight, I suspect the problem lies in separating them. (You definitely need a cite for his marriage if you plan on leaving it in the article.)--Launchballer 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Launchballer: I have un-separated the paras as per your request. DYK check gives 1629 characters of readable prose. Storye book (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better. Okay, long enough, new enough. No neutrality issues found, no maintenance issues found, Earwig only picks up titles. QPQ done. I am not happy about using a reference with /tag/ in the URL (Courier & Evening Telegraph, currently ref #4) as you should really cite each article, but I still can't find the policy to that effect and it probably isn't a DYK issue anyway, so you're off the hook. Both hooks short enough, though I find ALT1 more interesting (just), both should probably start "the Scottish judge", and I'd want to see a better source anyway (it's on this page as Who's Who).--Launchballer 11:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have adjusted ALTs 0 and 1 as you requested, and added ALT2 because "officer" appears in the citations. I have not struck ALTs 1 and 2, because I still believe that it is likely to be true, and that there must be a better citation out there somewhere - just need to find it. So at the moment I'm recommending ALT2. Storye book (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 29

Dora and the Fantastical Creatures

5x expanded by Zingo156 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dora and the Fantastical Creatures; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • This is my first time reviewing a DYK nomination, so I would like a second opinion on this.
    • According to DYKcheck, you started 5x expanding on December 28, 2023. You nominated the article for DYK the day after, so it passes newness in this case.
    • Article is long enough (4601 characters).
    • The current hook you have proposed (ALT0) is not really interesting. I'd recommend that you come up with a new one.
    • The article needs some work, especially in the "Reception" section. It uses the "X said Y" format, which is discouraged. See this essay for ideas.
    • Earwig detected quotes used in the article that are properly cited to their sources.

Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zingo156 have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Davest3r08 AirshipJungleman29 apologies for not answering speedily. Yeah, I will address the articles problems before the end of January. Zingo156 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zingo156: Have the issues been resolved, and thus this is ready for a review? If issues are not resolved soon, this nomination might be closed as unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Yeah I just attended to them. Sorry for the wait. Zingo156 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davest3r08: Per the above, this nomination is ready for you to continue your review. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Z1720. (courtesy pinging @Zingo156)
Anyways:
  • Going to fail this nomination. While Zingo did address the issues from the article, they did not change the hook and have not edited this page in seven days. Feel free to renominate this if you consider this as a mistake. Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 30

Madeleine Steere

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 05:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Madeleine Steere; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice work on this article! I only have a couple small issues that need addressing before I can pass this: the lead section is too short, it should really be expanded given the amount of information in the text of the article; and the first "a" in the "australia women's" section should be capitalised. Grnrchst (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Grnrchst: Thank you for your review. The said issues are addressed. Please check. CeeGee 09:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for seeing to it! I still think the lead could be a bit longer, but am happy to pass this review the now. Nice work :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for approving. You are free to expand the lede. CeeGee 06:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not interesting to me, but I don't know anything about college sports either. Why is "2018 All-American team" in scare quotes? What in particular makes this interesting? They have an all-american team every year. What makes this person being selected to it special? Grammar nit: shouldn't it be "selected for" instead of "selected in"?
  • CeeGee I don't think this hook meets the interestingness criterion. Is it possible for you to find a better one? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have also tagged it as needing copyediting; there are numerous odd errors ("She capped in 67 international matches", "She enjoyed her team's champions title", etc.). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Copyedited accordingly. I can not locate "etc." Thanks for your check. CeeGee 06:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have not. CeeGee, it might be good for you to nominate this article at WP:GOCE. In any case, you have not provided a new hook; unless you propose a new one which meets the criteria, this nomination will be rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sources do not support the hook (no mention of Steere "helping" her team, just her name in a roster—WP:SYNTH), which is in any case of the simple "person does job"-type. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 1

Lissandro

Created by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lissandro; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

@Moscow Connection: Reping due to a typo. With that said, how do the following hooks sound?
ALT1 ... that 2022 Junior Eurovision winner Lissandro earned the nickname "Elvissandro" due to his love of Elvis Presley?
ALT2 ... that 2022 Junior Eurovision winner Lissandro has done voice-overs for several television series and animation films?
The article is also a bit on the shorter side so if possible I'd like to see it beefed up more. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's a desire to keep some level of mystery and encourage clicks, we could also have ALT1a ... that 2022 Junior Eurovision winner Lissandro has the nickname "Elvissandro"?, but I'd leave it to the reviewer to decide. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I donated a qpq. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BuySomeApples: Thank you so much! I did another QPQ, so you should use yours for another review, in order to save your time and effort.. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Sorry. I'm back and I promise I won't disappear again. (Btw, I had a very good excuse last year. But this time it is just that I was a bit distressed after an AfD discussion. And I switched to a computer that feels uncomfortable to work on. I've tried to do a QPQ. And I'm trying now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will search for more sources tomorrow. I'm sure I can expand the article.
I like ALT1 the most. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT1 and ALT1b are cited and interesting enough. The article is new enough (at the time of nom) and just barely long enough but there's a couple source problems. The article includes his birth date but this source only seems to include his birth year. Also, the information about "Oh Maman!" being released as a single is sourced to Apple Music, are there any secondary sources we can use? BuySomeApples (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have found a source [12], but I will search for a better one tomorrow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't find a better source for the complete sentence ("On 28 October 2022, the song was released as a single"), but I have found a source for the song being released as a single by MCA, see my edit: [13]. (The Parisien article is partially behind a paywall, so I added a Google snippet quote.) I hope it is enough, the release date is still sourced from Apple Music. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Moscow Connection: I removed the birth date and left the year, and changed the date of the single's release to the month of release so everything is cited now. I think this one is ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
information Note: The article is very short, at only 1570 bytes of prose, and with lots of possibilities for concision. I am unwilling to promote such a borderline article; other promoters may disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll expand it tomorrow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After recent copyediting (for concision?), the article is now down to 1250 prose characters, nowhere near enough. Moscow Connection, it's been five days and that expansion you said you'd do remains undone. Please complete the now-required expansion in the next couple of days if you wish to continue pursuing this nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gallery (New Orleans)

Iron galleries in New Orleans
Iron galleries in New Orleans

Created by Z22 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Gallery (New Orleans); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The linked document does not explicitly state that galleries are wider than balconies at the stated page number.
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Need some source clarification. SounderBruce 02:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source does not explicitly say they are wider but it says the widths cover the entire sidewalk in comparison to 3-4 feet for balconies. If we should not imply by using general knowledge that sidewalk is 4+ feet, then we can have another hook like:
ALT1: ... that in New Orleans, galleries (example pictured) differ from balconies in that galleries extend over the sidewalks and have supporting posts?
Or something else that you may want to suggest. Z22 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new hook is clunky and has an unnecessary repeat of the word "gallery". Upon a second look at the article, there's quite a bit of copyediting that is needed; passages like "the fashion had moved on with the time to catch up with the modern architecture" are really hard to parse. SounderBruce 05:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it easier to read just to say something like these instead?
ALT2a: ... that in New Orleans, galleries (example pictured), unlike balconies, feature supporting posts?
ALT2b: ... that in New Orleans, galleries (example pictured) distinguish themselves from balconies through the addition of supporting posts?
ALT2c: ... that in New Orleans, galleries (example pictured) differ from balconies because they feature supporting posts?
Or you are thinking that we need something completely different? Any suggestions are appreciated. Z22 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I had some edits to improve readability. Let me know if you still spot the parts that require more work. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SounderBruce: Not sure if there are things that we should still improve. Let me know your feedback. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still in pretty rough shape, with passages such as "to support the Confederate", "The later is notable", "The destruction also happened", and "left the city unscratched" all needing to be fixed up among other examples. I don't think this is suitable unless a full copyedit is completed. SounderBruce 07:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your patience on this. I made a few revisions, really putting in the effort to edit the whole page. Not just the things you mentioned. I tackled the entire piece. I think it should be in good shape now, but if you're not feeling it, we could use another pair of eyes from another editor to help with copyediting? Z22 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 6

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

New article, long enough, fully supported by both primary and secondary source provided, and is interesting. No problems facing the bold-linked articles. QPQ has been done. The hook is neutral and factual and does not hold any opinions. The nomination is good to go. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I oppose that User:Makeandtoss will review this nomination he is involved in this WP:CTOP WP:ARBPIA area we need another reviewer that is not involved in the area. Suggest NPOV hook

There is no such thing as you oppose my review, which is based on WP guidelines, nor is there such a thing as requiring another reviewer who is not involved in the area. The original hook is factual and does not have opinions in it, unlike the one you suggested. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WP:DYKRR is clear "use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest." you edited this article and other articles in the WP:CTOP area. The original hook gives only prominence of South Africa POV so there is nothing neutral in it --Shrike (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had people edit an article of mine before and edit in the topic area in question and still approve my nomination. It's not really that bit of a deal, so long as they are properly going through the requirements of approval. By the way, your proposed ALT is way more biased than the original hook and, considering you publicly state on your account that you are from Israel, you're the one that looks like they have a conflict of interest here and really should not be proposing such a hook. SilverserenC 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1 is grammatically incorrect. starship.paint (RUN) 12:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose original formulation and ALT1. The original proposal throws in the apartheid allegation, which is out of scope of the Genocide Convention and will not be adjudicated by the ICJ. ALT1 also cites an emotive and non-substantive "blood libel" rebuttal rather than the actual reasons that Israel denied the charges at the ICJ, namely that they are acting in self-defense and that the official directives of the authorities conducting the war do not show any genocidal intent. ALT3 seems to be best alternative, as it is a NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on (in the short term). --Chefallen (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT2: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the Israeli legal team argued that the International Court of Justice had no jurisdiction over the war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship.paint (RUN) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to me as a good suggestion though in my opinion the article is not stable yet Shrike (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Starship.paint: no objection in principle, and the proposed hook is entirely factual. My concern is that the statement leads a reader to assume that by jurisdiction we mean something it doesn’t mean. Shaw’s argument on the topic of jurisdiction was: (1) a procedural question about whether SA had given Israel enough time to discuss ahead of the case, and (2) whether there really is enough evidence to confirm the proposed facts of the case and the intent required therein. Plus none of this technical argument is currently explained in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I'll have to look into this once I am free. I think we have time as the article will stabilize in the meantime. starship.paint (RUN) 23:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right Onceinawhile, I found a source giving a description that roughly matches (1), whether there was an actual dispute between South Africa and Israel regarding their responses to each other. In that case ALT2 is potentially misleading. I've withdrawn it in the meantime. starship.paint (RUN) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT3: ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel is aimed at persuading the International Court of Justice to order a ceasefire in Israel's war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship.paint (RUN) 09:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support this version. NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on, unlike original and ALT1. --Chefallen (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chefallen and Shrike: - would either of you like to approve ALT3 then and mark this nomination as ready? I mean, the opposition to original hook and ALT1 is clear, surely the DYK promoter would not choose those. starship.paint (RUN) 15:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the court rejected the cease fire demand we need to reflect this in hook [18] --Shrike (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT3 is factually incorrect taking a strict view. And its given source is dated Jan 11, well before the recent Order with detailed discussion, so the source is speculative. South Africa did not ask for a two sided "ceasefire". Going to the ICJ judgement, it records that South Africa asked for "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza" (page 3). SA actually asked for a one-sided "suspension", not a "ceasefire". So a DNY claiming something that is demonstrably not in the actual Order is a pretty silly. The ICJ did in fact order a provisional measure that Israel prevent the commission of "(a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", (measure 1 on pages 24-25) where "group" is roughly the Palestinian population of Gaza, so did in fact order something approximating to what SA asked. (As Palestine (or Hamas) is not a State Party to the Convention, I doubt that ICJ can actually order either of them to do things, hence SA did not ask for that.) Rwendland (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. ALT3 is simply not correct - the case is aimed at stopping an actual or potential genocide, depending on your point of view. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Struck. starship.paint (RUN) 02:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was wrong with the original main hook again? It was completely factual per the ICJ filing by South Africa and is interesting because apartheid isn't as much discussed about the filing as compared to the genocide aspect. SilverserenC 02:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT4: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the International Court of Justice initially ordered Israel to "punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza? Source: ABC News starship.paint (RUN) 02:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT4 is short enough, interesting, and cited, though the site is down and you will need this archived link. Anyone who wants to come at me with why I should approve a different hook may do so. I personally choose not to promote articles in the throes of a requested move to avoid risking having a redirect on the main page, but while we're waiting:
Refs 78 and 135 are malformed (78 uses a [1] for a title, 135 has a bare URL).
Ref 184 is cited to TASS and refs 64, 138, 185, 220 are cited to Anadolu Agency, which are both listed at WP:RSP as being unreliable, and ref 181 claims to cite Anadolu Agency when it instead cites A.com.tr, instead of Aa.com.tr. Can these be remedied?--Launchballer 03:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 7

Gebhard Schädler

Created by TheBritinator (talk). Self-nominated at 22:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Gebhard Schädler; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • ALT1 checks out. That said, I suggest that the words "academically trained" aren't necessary, hence the hook could be simplified. I haven't done the other DYK checks; hence no tick. Schwede66 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Full review needed now that an alternative hook has been suggested. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ready to review. User:TheBritinator, User:Schwede66, I think ALT1 is too ambiguous - unclear on first reading what "for 12 years" means, - "12, not 10?", I thought. Put it at the beginning please or rephrase differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having looked closer, I don't think the whole duration thing is worth pursuing, - the first source I read has "einige Jahre" (several years), no precise 12, and I don't see 12 in the article either. How about the first smallpox vacc and/or the midwives' training, instead of just a time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We could also say that he treated the poor and the court officials for nothing, probably had to for the latter. Landesphysicus - no idea how that would translate, sort of State Physician. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe that this document should be part of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article is practically written on one source which we will have to accept, as it is a solid encyclopedia. I'd like a bit of a summary in the lead, and think we can't just say master's degree for the historic Magister which was rather an equivalent to today's doctorate (which needs to be explained). Waiting for a hook or two, and these changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 10

Stefano Černetić

Created by BuySomeApples (talk). Self-nominated at 02:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stefano Černetić; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • The DYK is certaily interesting, and the sources cited support the statement. I'm IAR'ing the 9/10 days, given the AfD and the very interesting hook, so no problems there. I can't find the corresponding source and body text for the fact he falsely claimed to be a prince of Macedonia, so that BLP issue needs to be sorted. I'll need to do a further spot-check still for BLP/copyvio. Earwig is clean, QPQ is done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've done spot checks on four paragraphs, showing good text-source integrity and no copyvio/transvio :). Minor point: What make Wine Spectator a reliable source? This may be subjective, but this seems a bit too close to gossip to me? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 11

Myanmar Photo Archive

Created by Munfarid1 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Myanmar Photo Archive; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • The article was nominated within a week of creation, so is new enough. It is more than long enough. In-line citations are properly used throughout the article and the only things the copyvio detector brings up are the quotes, which are fine. All of the hooks are good and are cited in-line. Not sure which one is the best, I like ALT2, but perhaps it's too coy? Either way, they're all good. The QPQ has been done. Looks good to go! SilverserenC 03:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As noted on the talk page, I have tagged the article for over-quotations and close paraphrasing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • As noted on the talk page, I have just deleted several quotations and changed the sections avoiding close paraphrasing. Waiting for guidance in order to delete the hatnotes. Munfarid1 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 12

2024 College Football Playoff National Championship

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2024 College Football Playoff National Championship; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Oppose ALT1 or any hook describing the 1948 national championship as "consensus". Cited article states "first outright national championship since 1948" but ALT1 hook changes this to "...consensus...". On the topic of national championships, "consensus" has several meanings. One is agreement between the two wire service polls (AP Poll and Coaches Poll), which the 1997 title fails (AP only). But the 1948 title didn't have agreement between those polls either... the Coaches Poll started in 1950. Another meaning of "consensus", the one used in the NCAA records book, is any national championship after 1950 awarded by one or more of the Big 4 selectors (AP Trophy, Coaches' Trophy, Grantland Rice Award, and MacArthur Bowl). The 1997 title meets that criteria with 3/4 of the selectors; the 1948 title does not (as it is pre-1950). PK-WIKI (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

full review needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: striking the original hook; as we cannot predict the future, we don't know that there will never again be a four-team format championship; all we know is that the plan is that there won't be one next year or going forward a few years at most. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 13

Jade Armor

Created by BuySomeApples (talk). Self-nominated at 03:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jade Armor; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @BuySomeApples: New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Minor rewording of hook done to avoid ending on a preposition. Issues identified: Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The Crimson Lord as a character is uncited.
    • The Señal News piece does not claim the martial artists were Wushu, only the stunt coordinator. These scenes were choreographed by Kung Fu stunt artists, all former French Kung Futeam members. This creates problems for the hook and the article text.
    • Nor is it claimed by either article that the stunts are the same ones used later. WP:SYNTH issue.

M-Beat

5x expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 13:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/M-Beat; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Do I understand it correctly that Junior Hart stated that he first met M-Beat by accident in 1989 and helped him because of being impressed by his drumming, while actually Junior Hart is M-Beat's father? (Just a question, I'm not planning to review the article yet.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite, Music Week asserted in its own words that that was how they met. I've been working on the principle that he disappeared for several years.--Launchballer 07:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlikely he had disappeared. He was about 13 in 1989. And he played in a school group. And according to the next section, he still lived with his parents at 21. (No, I'm not reviewing this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. Well, for any future reviewer, 'disappeared' was the wrong word, and I meant Junior in any case - he could very well have not found out Marlon was his until later.--Launchballer 12:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewer needed. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 14

Perihan Çınar

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 10:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Perihan Çınar; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • (Not a review) The hook is pretty boring, even if it were to be formatted to make it more idiomatic. Reading the article, I don't see anything more interesting. Please watch for typos; I corrected two just giving the page a quick glance. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • General eligibility:
  • New enough: Yes
  • Long enough: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The article contains numerous typos and errors. I have tagged it as needing copyediting.
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Current DYK guidelines which the article does not meet: WP:DYKINT and WP:DYKCOMPLETE. A new hook is needed, along with a copyedit for the article ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Modified a little. Sportspeople need license to perform a sport in a club. CeeGee 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: You must be joking. A sport license is not a subject for sale. Do I have to explain how a license is obtained? CeeGee 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is neither an explanation of how a license is obtained or a link to a relevant page on the Turkish hockey website, CeeGee. Please do not be obstructive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know who is obstructive. What do you mean whit a link to Turkish hockey. That was the link as I understood your request. For the license obtaining I advise you maybe ask someone you know who is familiar with sports. CeeGee 06:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The link you have provided shows that her getting a license is not intriguing in the slightest—it might as well say "her parents filled out some forms when she was eleven". Since no interesting hooks have been nominated in the last week, I am marking this as rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I guess you misunderstand the fact. At age eleven, she is able to fill out any forms. How do you know that her parents have filled out the forms. Besides, what does make the obtaining of the license not important. Do you try to fabricate reasons to block the nomination? I am sure someone would pay attention to your action. CeeGee 09:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Because I read the link you provided but clearly did not read yourself, which states that any license application from a person under eighteen needs parental permission. You are welcome to ask for wider attention at WT:DYK; I would however suggest you don't accuse others of acting in bad faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Isn't clear that minors need parental consent to enter into legal contracts. The fact is, however, she obtained the license to perform hockey in a clubata t her age eleven. The problem is that you come with unlogical arguments. CeeGee 06:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 15

Hermann Collitz

5x expanded by Wugapodes (talk). Self-nominated at 04:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hermann Collitz; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

(alternative hook which I found interesting) ALT1: ... that the German linguist Hermann Collitz had studied four languages at school by the age of 13, in addition to two more he encountered at home? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: That review was pleasantly straightforward, and also informative. Very nice text expansion, balanced and reasonable, cited quite well. No earwig issues. Just one thing then - the rules for citation of the hook fact(s) are quite specific, and are not yet met. I don't think it will be a problem, but the hook fact(s) must appear in the article, and be cited "no later than the end of the sentence" - so Bryn Mawr for the subject needs a repeat cite, and I think that the points re. Thomas and Wilson need to be mentioned (and cited) in-article. I will be standing by. The ALT is mildly interesting but not maybe so exceptional - I know several bilingual kids who have also studied three further languages in school. SeoR (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 20

Jo-anne Wilkinson

Created by Panamitsu (talk). Self-nominated at 10:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jo-anne Wilkinson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Dingle wasn't knighted until 2017, and the leak occurred in 1992–1993, so he was just plain Graeme Dingle at the time of the incident on the Bering Sea. Paora (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Paora, I will keep that in mind in future. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wentworth–Bland flag

Electoral flag used by Wentworth and Bland
Electoral flag used by Wentworth and Bland

Created by Willthorpe (talk). Self-nominated at 05:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Wentworth-Bland flag; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Comment. This is less about the DYK eligibility, and I'm sure this is fine as an independent article, but... practically nothing in this article is about the flag. It's almost all about the background of the flag's creators and some events that happened contemporaneously with the flag's usage. The cited source, [29], doesn't even sound sure that the banner was used during the events discussed: "This banner was probably created for Australia’s first ‘national’ political elections held on 15 June 1843." (Of course, maybe they mean it was potentially created earlier.) A decent amount of the article seems like it'd really have a better home at 1843 New South Wales colonial election, and then prominently link that, perhaps? SnowFire (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • SnowFire The source further down has several mentions of the banner and the 1843 election, and the former's use during the latter. I previously cited two sources on this nomination. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Fair enough. I'm... still not sure that this information isn't really better treated elsewhere, or that the statement in the lede that "The banner is notable for its role in early Australian electoral democracy" is fully supported by the text. Again, it's good content, it's great to be on Wikipedia somewhere, but with the exception of the "Legacy" section, it really seems like the article is actually about 1843 New South Wales colonial election, Sydney. The flag was present during these riots, sure, but I'm not sure it was really the focus - presumably the rioters ire was aimed at Wentworth and Bland personally, not merely their flag. (But yes, this is DYKN, not RM. But I'd consider refactoring or moving the article on the above grounds, or else having more content on the flag - the "Legacy" section has some, but it's just two sentences.) SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 21

John Blair (surgeon)

Created by Whispyhistory (talk), Philafrenzy (talk), and Iainmacintyre (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 09:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Blair (surgeon); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Not a very interesting hook IMO. Can't you come up with anything better? Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit mean, but I agree. How about:
  • ALT1... that the Scottish surgeon John Blair received his degree in surgery for a thesis on the "Slipperiness of Human Fat"?
  • ALT2... that the Scottish surgeon John Blair was the only head boy at his school to receive his gold medal in the presence of his wife and child? (I think this was what Whispyhistory was actually getting at)
  • ALT3... that a shortage of gold meant that it was 60 years before the Scottish surgeon John Blair received his gold medal for being head boy at his school? (Whispyhistory to check the exact number of years) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, much better, thanks! I will return a little later to complete the review. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, "head boy" won't work because it differs from dux. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would "best student" be better? Whispyhistory (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Top student" perhaps ... Gatoclass (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT3a... that a shortage of gold meant that it was 60 years before the Scottish surgeon John Blair received his gold medal for being top student at his school? Whispyhistory (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seriously, why aren't we going with the slipperiness of human fat??? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 22

Walker Keith Baylor

  • ... that Walker Keith Baylor voted in favor of a bill entitled "an act to more effectually prevent Sabbath breaking"? Source: Journal of the Alabama House of Representatives of the State of Alabama, begun and held at the town of Cahawba, on the third Monday in Nobember, 1825, Being the Seventh Annual Session of the General Assembly of Said State. Cahawba: William B. Allen, State Printers. 1826. pp. 100–101 – via the Wayback Machine.
    • Reviewed:

Created by Aneirinn (talk). Self-nominated at 23:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Walker Keith Baylor; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 23

Leeds 2023

Leeds 2023's opening event
Leeds 2023's opening event

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 21:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Leeds 2023; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Comment: @Lajmmoore: I like your hook, but the variant or dialect of English (British English?) reads oddly to my American ear. This reminds me of the "in hospital" style we see in British and Australian English (maybe Canadian, too?) that throws me off every time I see it. As an American, I almost expect "a" European Capital of Culture or "the" European Capital of Culture, but I think I get that you don't do this in your variant. Also, referring it to as a "scheme" made this dumb American very confused (I know, it's easy to do that to us). I also don't know what an "independent year of culture" is, but I assume it's not European based on the post-Brexit prompt. I wonder if you can dumb this hook down for us yanks across the pond. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT1...that people exchanged their artworks for tickets to attend the opening of Leeds 2023 (pictured)?https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jan/10/i-get-knocked-down-leedss-year-of-culture-rises-from-the-ashes-of-brexit
    Thanks very much Viriditas for the comments - please don't talk down about yourself! It's my bad for not thinking globally in the first place. Hopefully this hook is better? Cheers Lajmmoore (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Interesting hook! Per the source, should you clarify that they didn't actually exchange artworks, but photos (or images) of art in exchange for tickets? I was confused by the hook until I read the source. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ALT1a...that people exchanged images of their artworks for tickets to the opening of Leeds 2023 (pictured)?https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jan/10/i-get-knocked-down-leedss-year-of-culture-rises-from-the-ashes-of-brexit
Thanks for pointing out the need for clarification Lajmmoore (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like what you are trying to accomplish! I tried to read about Leeds 2023 to find out more about it, but it is difficult for me to put it in words. I find this very strange. There must be a single, unifying term that explains or describes it, and I was hoping you could add this term to the hook to prompt the reader. The only word that I could come up with is showcase but I suspect that even that word doesn’t do it justice. Whatever Leeds 2023 is supposed to be, it sounds admirable and good. I just wish there was a way to describe it in your hook using just one or two words. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Viriditas, yeah it's tricky. I think the phrase in Europe is "year of culture", but that doesn't seem to have meaning with you. I'm going to try and come up with a different hook this week, if you don'tmind hanging on to review? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lajmmoore, that's fine. Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thanks for this nomination. I wonder if other non-Brits like myself will know what "a year of culture taking place in Leeds" means. I don't think it would be difficult to briefly explain it. I get it is a paid project for Leeds 2023, but we need to be mindful of corporate jargon and style. For example, I don't think we need three small blockquotes, that's a bit too promotional and advertis-y, so let's cut back on that entirely and put the quotes inline or get rid of them. There's no need for a centered blockquote, for example, stating the intent. Let's keep it encyclopedic. I would eliminate all blockquotes and move everything inline. The "Programme" section needs subsection titles, it's just too long without it and hampers readability. Also, I wonder how many people will know what a "damp squib" is, so maybe add a footnote explaining it or link to a definition. Although I checked the hook off in the review, I do note we are still working on it. I think ALT0 is ready to go, but the wording is not ideal. As long as the article is cleaned up for neutrality, I will be happy to approve it or another hook of the nominator's choice. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claire Guichard

Created by Moondragon21 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Claire Guichard; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @Moondragon21: Based on DYKcheck: prose size fulfills criteria (2569 characters), article is recent enough. Suggest changing future to current in the hook.
    Suggestion
    ALT1:... that parliament member Claire Guichard once played in the miniseries Entre terre et mer? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Moondragon21: Multiple short, uncited paragraphs in the Political career section need citations before this can be approved. ALT1 hook fact does not check out in supplied source. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Sammi Brie: I have now added citations. Moondragon21 talk 06:38 22 February 2024 (UTC)
      • @Moondragon21: The paragraph "In the National Assembly, she sits..." is still devoid of any citations. The Entre terre et mer fact is still not checking out to that source. ALT0 needs a minor rewording, probably the delinking of "French Prime Minister" and changing to "prime minister", to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. Note: Your ping did not work: please sign your name normally with ~~~~ in the same edit as the ping. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 24

Demise and revival of compulsory figures

Sonja Morgenstern from Germany skates a compulsory figure, 1971
Sonja Morgenstern from Germany skates a compulsory figure, 1971

Created by Figureskatingfan (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Demise and revival of compulsory figures; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

The hook still seems quite complicated and hard to read. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: let's do some cutting then. ALT4: ... that a revival of compulsory figures began in 2015, when the first World Figure Championships occurred in Lake Placid, New York? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Could we have some movement on this, please? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a review of the article, but not really a fan of the hook since compulsory figures may not be a concept that's easily understandable by non-specialist readers. I'll ask for help for any possible hook suggestions because I think the current direction isn't working out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I asked for some suggestions on Discord and someone suggested the following:
ALT5 ... that professional figure skating did not require its namesake figures for 25 years?
@Figureskatingfan: How does it sound? To me at least it solves the issues with specialism that the previous proposals had. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: ALT5 doesn't describe what the article is about, which is the demise and revival of compulsory figures. Plus, there are no sources in the article that support it. Also, the World Figure Championships isn't a professional event and the sport still doesn't require compulsory figures. One of the reasons for an interesting hook is to motivate the reader to click the link and learn about a new article. ALT4 has the potential of the reader thinking, "What are compulsory figures and what's the reason for its revival?" and go to the article to find out. Re:specialism: I could point to DYKs on the main page on any given day and make the same interpretation. Believe me, I've come across this objection about almost every figure skating article I've put up for assessment and it's not a strong argument. I don't think we should remove the technical aspects about figure skating from a DYK hook, either. Consequently, I ask that you approve ALT4. Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is in the rules: a hook has to avoid being reliant on specialist knowledge, especially without context. If you have an issue with those other hooks, that would be worth raising on WT:DYK, but WP:OSE is not an argument when it comes to why such a hook could be allowed that time but not this. As for the article itself, it meets requirements and a QPQ has been done, but ALT4 as currently written won't work per WP:DYKINT (a hook should be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest"). The article relies on quotes from the CBS Sportsline quote: most are correctly attributed, but a few are unattributed paraphrases, so that needs to be addressed. My suggestion would be to workshop ALT5 further to address the issues about accuracy or sourcing, but ALT4 won't do. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then I'd like to suggest ALT6: ... that Olympic figure skater Debi Thomas came in second place in a 2023 competition in compulsory figures? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's even worse. What is significant about her coming in second place? Why would a non-figure skating fan find this significant? Plus ALT6 is even less to do with the demise and revival of figures than what ALT5 is trying to say. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because she's Debi Thomas. Her coming in second place is like Tiger Woods not coming in first, either. The only reason a non-golf fan would know that it's important is because golf gets more media coverage than figure skating. I'm afraid that you'd have the same problem with any hook I suggest, a recurring issue with submitting figure skating articles for any peer review across Wikipedia. And it has a lot to do with the revival of figures because it was the first competition to bring back figures in any competition. I'm also not sure this discussion is going anywhere, so I'd like a second reviewer, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just not seeing the issue here. Is ALT5 or a variant thereof really not workable? The other hooks seem to primarily be targeted towards skating fans, not general audiences, which goes against the spirit of DYK and the guidelines. If there have been repeated concerns about figure skating hooks on Wikipedia, maybe there's a reason to that: perhaps reviewers in general are just seeing the hooks as too technical or specialist. I just can't see why moving forward with some variant of ALT5 (even if not in its current form) isn't an option considering it seems like an actual interesting hook especially to non-skating fans and is likely to make them read more, unlike the other hooks which are likely to just turn readers away. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to make a separate comment. Most people who read the Main Page of Wikipedia are not figure skating fans, and a fair number will not know of the sport.
Some of this is simply because of the geographic diversity of our readership. Our Top 25 Reports really illustrate this. Ever heard of Ram Mandir? The Africa Cup of Nations? Shoaib Malik? These are all topics that got lots of pageviews at some point in recent weeks, and I doubt you will have heard of most of them. Even in places with more figure skating, not everyone will have heard of Debi Thomas.
As a veteran of DYK with a heavy contribution in an esoteric topic area (broadcasting in the US), I've thrown out a lot of dud hooks. Hooks that require knowledge of some or other name, like Lachlan Murdoch or John Seigenthaler, are among my worst performers. Regularly. Your ALT6 would fail to inspire a lot of interest. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 08:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 25

Olivetti Valentine

Olivetti Valentine typewriter (1969)
Olivetti Valentine typewriter (1969)

Created by 842U (talk). Nominated by Cl3phact0 (talk) at 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Olivetti Valentine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I agree that ALT1 is the preferable hook. Nice article, but there a couple of sourcing issues that need to be addressed: I have added one citation needed tag, and have tagged three unreliable sources (blogs and Tumblr) which should probably be removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Thanks, AirshipJungleman29! I'll have a look at the tags (as I'd guess will 842U) and try to help resolve any sourcing issues. I've also struck out the first hook above for clarity, as ALT1 seems to be the preferred option. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I've resolved 2 of the 3 unreliable sources and am wondering if we should somehow preserve the third, as it contains a photograph of Dieter Rams actually typing on his Valentine (or if not, whether it's possible to upload the image to Commons for posterity)? I'm also wondering if there's a better way to resolve the advertising spot references (most of which are on youtube) – perhaps a notelist that groups these together? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 26

Georgetown football, 1874–1889

Created by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Georgetown football, 1874–1889; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Article was newly written before it was nominated and is long enough and has sources where they're needed. Neutrally written, Earwig detects shared text but they are quotes that are attributed. I'd rather you rewrote the according to HoyaSaxa.com than copy that. Hooks are interesting. Sources indicate that Georgetown's first game was forfeited. Problem with that hook is that the HoyaFootball source is the only one there and all it says is that Georgetown beat Alexandria, 2-0. It doesn't say the game wasn't played. Censors hook is solid. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Line of Duty (series 3)

  • ... that Jed Mercurio almost let "The Caddy" live? Source: [31] and [32] Quotes: "Dot’s escape was a bloody affair, and ended with him riddled with bullets, recording his dying declaration for Kate Fleming before passing away" and "Also, at the end of season 3, I seriously considered keeping the Caddy hidden from the rest of the team. Cottan came up with lots of plausible denial, framed Steve and continued within AC-12. But I knew people were desperate for justice."
    • ALT1: ... that Jed Mercurio almost let "The Caddy" live in series 3 of Line of Duty? Source: Same sources as above
    • Reviewed: N/A: First nomination
    • Comment: This is a work of fiction, but the fact considers real-world production information by sourcing a quote from the creator/writer. I believe that should allow it to pass DYKFICTION. I also came up with an alt hook In case the first would be considered an Easter Egg link. This is my first nomination, so I shouldn't need to review another article. I might also be able to try another alt if neither pass DYKFICTION.

5x expanded by TheDoctorWho (talk). Self-nominated at 04:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Line of Duty (series 3); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Tapir!

Created by Suntooooth (talk). Self-nominated at 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tapir!; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Raoul Augereau

Created by Lettler (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Raoul Augereau; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 27

Sodankylä Old Church

The Sodankylä Old Church in 2019
The Sodankylä Old Church in 2019

Created by Juustila (talk). Self-nominated at 18:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sodankylä Old Church; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Starting the review now. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria. New. Long enough. No concerns with Earwig nor with tone. Some amount of copy edits might be required. Will note them below. Image is a nice one. Image seems to have been uploaded as "own work" with geo-location enabled. So, no concerns there. QPQ not needed. Ktin (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hook
    • Hook says that the church is "one of Finland's oldest and well preserved wooden churches". The source however says [the church] ... is one of Finland’s oldest preserved wooden churches. So, basis this source, the first part of the hook is quoted and the latter part (i.e. "well preserved") is a subjective opinion that is not born by the quote. Furthermore, when we say the statement in the latter part of the hook, we should quote it to a source that is independent. Currently, the source links to the city's tourism website if I understand it correct -- that might not be the best source.
    • Consider retaining the first part and remove the subjectivity in the second part unless we are able to source it to a reliable independent source. e.g. "the church is one of the oldest preserved wooden churches"

Article feedback below. The article is largely good with some improvement feedback below.

  • Lede
    • "The church is considered one of the best preserved wooden churches in Finland" -- According to whom? Can we tie that statement to Finnish Heritage Agency? If so, this can be a compelling statement. However, if we are saying "According to Visit Lapland, the church is considered one of the best preserved wooden churches in Finland," that might not be compelling enough
  • History
    • Some amount of copyediting might be required here across the section.
    • You could start with when construction began and when it was completed, rather than starting with when construction was completed and then coming back three sentences later to say when construction might have started.
    • "Valuable persons" -- consider rewording this phrase. Prominent people? Consider adding a few examples of these prominent people
    • "is best preserved as a mummy" -- reword this phrase
    • "renovated again in 1979–1980 and 1992–1995" -- if you are giving a range of dates consider using "between" instead of "in"
  • Structure
    • "Medieval tradition" -- is there further qualification that can be added here? e.g. Medieval tradition of xxx
    • "Exceptional way" -- I do not know the architectural concepts here, but, are we trying to say the planking is different from normal rafter structure. If so, consider rewording
  • Other Notes
    • Can we add any notes on what the church is used for currently? The Visit Sodankyla website says it is not open for visitors currently.[1] Any details that you can add?

Handing this back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sodankylä Old Church". Visit Sodankylä. 2023-01-10. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
@Juustila: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ktin: Does the above address your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the nudge @Z1720:. I made a few copyedits on the article. I am going to make a minor edit to the hook.
If this is alright, I will go ahead and mark this approved. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm okay with this. Thanks. Juustila (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Approved. Ktin (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reopening per concerns at WT:DYK – some more reliable sources for the hook (and excising the non-reliable sources) would be good before re-approval. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying my note from WT:DYK.I agree with @Theleekycauldron:'s note in spirit. In fact I had noted that in my review. That said, the revised hook is a very basic one which is hard not to prove. The hook basically says, the church is one of the oldest preserved wooden churches. The fact is so-basic, that the mere existence of the church (in whatever active capacity) is sufficient to prove the hook. And, the tourism department website proves its existence, in my opinion. That said, if folks want to get a WP:RS source other than the tourism department website, and the nominator is willing, I will not stand in the way. Cheers.
  • Copying my note from WT:DYK. Another issue is that the final paragraph, from "The church does not have roof chairs" appears to be an uncredited machine translation of the Finnish article. TSventon (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The preceding paragraph, from "Stylistically, the church represents" also appears to be an uncredited machine translation of the Finnish article. TSventon (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the note and the findings TSventon. I am tagging @Juustila: to address some of these. Ktin (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In parallel, wanted to ask about the specific guidance we should be sharing with the nominators on this topic. I am somewhat unclear, because in the latest Vector 2022 skin, there seems to be a push to translate Wikipages to multiple languages using machine translations as a starting action. I am assuming that the skin / workflow asks folks to do their edits / checks after the machine translation is generated? Ktin (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Rafael Falls

5x expanded by Shannon1 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/San Rafael Falls; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Article says that the waterfall retreated upstream and disappeared over a few months, rather than just in February. A direct citation is also needed (the mention in the lead is ideal for hook eligibility).
  • Interesting: Yes

QPQ: No - Pending
Overall: An interesting and tragic article; I would like to see the hook issue cleared up, but otherwise the article looks great. SounderBruce 05:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shannon1: Can you please confirm how many DYK nominations you have so far? If it's more than five, you need to provide a QPQ for this nomination to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per the new tool I can confirm that Shannon1 has less than five nominations and thus does not need to do a QPQ. However, Shannon1 is currently on Wikibreak, so unless they return soon and address the issues, the nomination may have to be closed. Given that their userpage indicates a short wikibreak, the nomination may be marked for closure if there is no response or activity by the 22nd (one week after this comment). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry I've been off Wikipedia for a bit and also busy working on another article so I forgot about this nomination. I'll add the citations to the lead. Would it be better if we changed the wording to "collapsed in February 2020 and disappeared within a few months"? Thank you, Shannon [ Talk ] 17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tidy Trax

Created by ResonantDistortion (talk). Self-nominated at 10:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tidy Trax; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Hiss (song)

Created by BeyPolite (talk). Nominated by MaranoFan (talk) at 19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hiss (song); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • That's much longer, and I think the law's name being the same as the rapper adds to both catchiness and interestingness.--NØ 07:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 28

Intermission (Hopper)

Created by Viriditas (talk) and Tryptofish (talk). Nominated by Viriditas (talk) at 21:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Intermission (Hopper); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Comment to Viriditas: thanks for providing so many QPQs! Most of them check out, but No Rome is not a full review as required by a QPQ guidelines, so I've struck it. I'm shaky on Weaponization of antisemitism, as it's also not a full-review, but given the depth of the quickfail, I'm inclined to say that's okay. Good luck with this nom, looks great! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Looks to me like Bogger holds both credits for doing both reviews, in case they don't know that they're entitled to use that nom a second time :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Theleekycauldron: Thank you. I completely missed that. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I updated it with a third hook. Will update with a fourth shortly. I removed the other two since it still shows up in what links here and that could throw people off. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kenneth Raisbeck

Created by 4meter4 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kenneth Raisbeck; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • This is not a full review, but I have some reservations about the hook. If a reader is unfamiliar with Wolfe or his novel, the hook doesn't really stand out, making the hook somewhat reliant on specialist knowledge. Can a more broadly understandable hook be proposed here? Although morbid, I wonder if a hook regarding the dispute regarding the circumstances of his death could work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @4meter4: I was asking for some feedback off-Wiki regarding this nom and Pretzelles offered this alternative wording:
ALT1 ... that despite falling out with its author, Kenneth Raisbeck was the basis for a character in the novel Of Time and the River?
Personally I think it's better than the original hook since it's less reliant on specialist knowledge. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 I am fine with the alternative hook provided Wolfe is named in the text. I don't necessarily think specialist knowledge is needed. Thomas Wolfe is a major American novelist. He was required reading when I went to high school (I read Look Homeward Angel in 11th grade English) and college (I read 'Of Time and the River in freshman English lit). It would be like not knowing who Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edgar Alan Poe, or Mark Twain are when it comes to American Lit. It would be rare to take a course in classic American lit in high school or college without reading Thomas Wolfe. He's a central writer, and is not exactly an esoteric topic. There is a whole slew of CliffsNotes and other study materials made for high school and college students for the novel Of Time and the River because it is a regularly assigned novel in English lit courses. The typical American will have studied Wolfe in school. I suppose global audience may not be as familiar with Wolfe, but certainly he is read in the UK. The Brits made a 2016 biopic film Genius which is about the writing of Of Time and the River so its not like this novel hasn't been in the broader public consciousness recently. I would oppose not including Wolfe's name in the hook because Wolfe's name is the immediate draw that make's it hooky in the same way other famous novelists like Twain, Poe, Dickens, Austen, etc. would be a draw. And yes Wolfe is in that class of major well known novelist (which is why we have things like biopic films being made on him). 4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose global audience may not be as familiar with Wolfe. This is really the issue here. Per WP:DYKINT: don't assume everyone worldwide is familiar with your subject. What we could do, as a compromise, could be ALT1a ... that despite falling out with its author, Kenneth Raisbeck was the basis for a character in the Thomas Wolfe novel Of Time and the River?, but it should still be noted that hooks should not be US centric (maybe it's me not being an American, but I have never heard of Wolfe before though I know who Twain, Poe, and Dickens are, and I imagine they're far more well-known internationally). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. One can't always know if something is US centric if you are yourself American and lack an outsiders perspective. I think the alt hook with the addition of Wolfe's name would be fine.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umrao Singh Sher-Gil

5x expanded by Ktin (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Ktin (talk) at 07:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Umrao Singh Sher-Gil; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 29

Sukadji Hendrotomo

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sukadji Hendrotomo; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Andrew Carnegie Mansion

The Andrew Carnegie Mansion
The Andrew Carnegie Mansion

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Andrew Carnegie Mansion; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @Epicgenius: 5x expanded and long enough. Comprehensive article and Earwig is 27% and only alerts to titles. QPQ is done and article is referenced, cited correctly and neutral. The image is free and renders well at this size. Under Site<