DYK queue status

There are currently 7 filled queues – all good!

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.

TOC: ↓ Go to bottom ↓ ↑ Go to top ↑

Section	# of Hooks	# Verified
Count of DYK Hooks
December 28	1
January 2
January 3	2
January 4	1
January 5
January 9	1
January 11
January 12	1
January 15	1
January 17	1
January 20	1
January 23	1
January 25	1
January 27	1
January 29	1
January 30	3
January 31	4	1
February 3	3	1
February 4	3
February 5	1	1
February 6	1	1
February 7	2	1
February 9	2
February 10	1	1
February 12	5	3
February 14	1
February 16	3	1
February 17	4	1
February 18	3	2
February 19	5	2
February 20	5	2
February 21	4	4
February 22	8	4
February 23	3	1
February 24	7	4
February 25	5	3
February 26	5	4
February 27	3	3
February 28	5	2
March 1	7	6
March 2	4	1
March 3	5	3
March 4	7	6
March 5	6	3
March 6	7	4
March 7	8	4
March 8	5	1
March 9	3	2
March 10	5	2
March 11	3	1
March 12	7	5
March 13	4	1
March 14	7	2
March 15	6	1
March 16	8	3
March 17	13	4
March 18	3
March 19	6	4
March 20	6	3
Total	219	98
Last updated 21:00, 20 March 2023 UTC Current time is 21:18, 20 March 2023 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

Shortcut

WP:DYKNOM

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing.

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

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 :*  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

See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for details on verifying a hook's acceptability.
Promoters should not promote their own nomination or their own review
When promoting hooks intended for a particular date, keep in mind that when the number of available approved nominations exceeds 120 we switch to two sets per day, and when that number drops below 60 we return to one set per day.

Check list for nomination review completeness

Select a hook from the
.
Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
- Any outstanding issue following
  needs to be addressed before promoting.
Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
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.
Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
Hook should make sense grammatically.
Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
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 :)

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.
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.
If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
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.
Save the Prep page.

Closing the DYK nomination page

At the upper left
- Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
- Change |passed= to |passed=yes
At the bottom
- Just above the line containing
  }}
  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.
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.
Save.

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

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

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction and rules	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Supplementary rules	WP:DYKSG
Reviewing guide	WP:DYKR
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
	v; t; e;

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on December 28

Alchymic Quartet

(

)

Andrew Szydlo presenting chemical experimants

... that the Alchymic Quartet is a string quartet by Graham Waterhouse, to be played during experiments of Andrew Szydlo (pictured), his former chemistry teacher at Highgate School? [1]
- Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed: Y
Used in article: Y
Clear at 100px: N - picture not perfectly clear at 100px

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Ready to approve once QPQ completed. Ploni^💬 00:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Thank you for the quick review. I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Ariana Orrego. Perhaps the image could be cropped? GRuban? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated! Cropping it would be an improvement. Ploni^💬 01:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally: I got it cropped thanks to GRuban, Ploni. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to go! Ploni^💬 02:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Gerda Arendt: loving the hook, but it's a bit unclear to me. Was it intended to be played regularly during the teacher's experiments? If so, can the article be updated to match? And when the article says He won Szydlo to not only come for the celebration of his 60th birthday, but also give a speech at the main concert, I don't understand what "won" means. Was there a contest? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last first: in German, you can "jemanden für eine Aufgabe gewinnen", and it didn't occur to me as an idiom, sorry. Deepl tells me it's "to win someone over to a task". Would that be good enough or is there a better phrase for it? It was a major trip for Szydlo, so having the experiments on the side was ideal, but will be rare, beginning with not happening the following day, when the chemist sat in the audience after his speech and was the first to stand for the ovation (pictured). Music is often inspired by something but can be meaningfully performed without the something. The same composer wrote a piece inspired by a painting, but you don't have to know the painting, or by concentric phenomena, as you will remember. - This hook would be most meaningful on 28 Februar 2023, his mother's 90th birthday. She sat next to Szydlo but didn't rise as fast. (But I hate to ask favours ;) - I love GRuban's pic cropping, better later than no pic.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hook needs revision per discussion above. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Didn't I explain? Help wording, please? We could say "meant to be played", "intended ...", "ideally ...", or say that the first time (on 4 Nov), that actually happened? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

when i first read this hook, i admittedly had thought waterhouse had written the music for his teacher to play in the background while he was conducting research. i didn't realize i had read it incorrectly until now, so thanks for bringing this up, theleekycauldron. the article suggests to me that the composition was written to be ideally performed alongside the chemical experiments, although the experiments themselves aren't strictly required for the performance. would replacing "to be played during" with "written to be performed alongside" or "written to be accompanied by" resolve this ambiguity?

regarding the use of "won", would replacing it with "convinced" or "persuaded" be appropriate? note that both words suggest that the performer did not immediately agree to the task when it was requested of them, but i am not sure if the german idiom conveys the same meaning. (i imagine "convinced" is more applicable to this situation, as i personally feel that "persuaded" may suggest a more antagonistic relationship between the two, which, i assume, is not the case here.) Gerda, does this translation seem accurate to you? on the contrary, if szydlo readily agreed to perform, perhaps replacing "He won Szydlo ... his 60th birthday" with "Szydlo agreed ... Waterhouse's 60th birthday" would work.

as an aside, english does have the expression "win over", but i think its use often suggests that the party persuaded was initially opposed to the proposition. dying (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for a valuable English lesson. For the hook, I propose your suggestion:

ALT0a: ... that the Alchymic Quartet is a string quartet by Graham Waterhouse, to be performed alongside chemical experiments of Andrew Szydlo (pictured), his former teacher at Highgate School?

"win" - I understand that "win over" is not appropriate, by your explanation, but the other two also seem to suggest too much of reluctance that had to be overcome. The image in the program book, and what Szydlo said, speak of closeness over all these years, but it was still a big deal for him to not only make the trip, but also arrange for the experiments, and speak the lauding words (in German, and he said: "I learned German for three years to speak in German." - You can hear it in the video), and be the first to stand afterwards right after the final note, initiating the standing ovations. What can English do to say so? "achieved"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh, that's a difficult question, Gerda. offhand, i can't think of any one english word that encompasses what you wish to describe. i think the word "enlist" might be close, as its frequent use in military contexts may suggest that szydlo's efforts were not trivial, but it similarly suggests that szydlo may have preferred to not perform at all. in any case, since i couldn't find the additional nuance you mentioned in the cited sources, i wouldn't worry too much about trying to include it in the article; i think your current wording, stating that szydlo was invited and came to perform and give a speech, is sufficient if theleekycauldron finds it agreeable. dying (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a simple "persuaded" is probably what you're looking for? We wouldn't say that if it weren't important... ALT0a looks good per initial review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 2

Articles created/expanded on January 3

Buchanan's Station

(

)

19th century view of the site; the log building on the right is a remnant of the 1780s fort.^[1]

ALT0 ... that an overloaded blunderbuss that exploded when fired was mistaken for a canon and scared the 300+ Indian attackers at Buchanan's Station (pictured), into retreat? Source: Slate, Mike; Buchanan's Station : The battle that saved the Cumberland settlements; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022
ALT1: ... that 15-20 sharpshooters at Buchanan's Station (pictured), withstood an attack by a Native American confederation of over 300 warriors, including Tecumseh? Source: Slate, Mike; Buchanan's Station : The battle that saved the Cumberland settlements; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Loophonium
- Comment: QPQ Done

Created by GenQuest (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Y Used in article: Y Clear at 100px: Y

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Article was new enough at nomination, is long enough, is well source, and is neutral. In terms of plagiarism - there is some close phrasing in the image caption that earwig picked up - it would be good if that could change. Additionally, the image caption is too long for a DYK, so please could it be shortened? Lajmmoore (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Lajmmoore: These concerns have been addressed, Thank you. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lajmmoore: Please let me know what more is needed to pass this? Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 00:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GenQuest: thanks for the reminder, caption and editing request are fulfilled Lajmmoore (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Could you please take a quick look at this article from a WikiProject Military History point of view? First of all, is it misnamed per WikiProject convention (i.e., should it be "Battle of Buchanan's Station" or similar)? Any other adjustments needed to conform to basic MH standards? (Thought of Kevin1776 because of Tecumseh but seems to be offline these days.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is fine. I have reassessed it as B class. The article naming seems okay. I don't know much about the place/period. @Hog Farm: might know more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name is fine, since the article discusses the stockade itself besides just the battle that took place there. Ideally there'd be some coverage of the period between the battle and whenever the stockade was abandoned in the article, but that's not always covered by sources. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to dig into this article or sources for it much. Hog Farm _Talk 07:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added additional information to the article to address the period between the battle and the sale of the property. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to Hawkeye7 and Hog Farm for reviewing, and to GenQuest for updating per comments. I would like to make ALT1 work somehow, but the issue I'm having is that the source says "a mere fifteen sharpshooters" in the body text while acknowledging in the footnote that other sources say as many as twenty – would it be possible to address this detail somehow in the article either with an explanatory endnote and/or finding and adding one of the other sources that says 20? The other issue I had was that I wasn't able to verify that Talitoskee was leading – it feels like maybe one of your sources accidentally got deleted or dropped – so could you please go through that section and fix as well? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Cielquiparle I believe all your objections have been met. Can this get passed now? GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is anyone looking at this anymore? GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GenQuest: I'm having trouble verifying the claim that Talitoskee was leading the raid on Buchanan's Station. Which source says that? Cielquiparle (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cielquiparle I've removed the offending statement. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks GenQuest! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Status? please. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GenQuest: Upon further review, this article still needs more work. For example, the paragraph on John Buchanan arriving in 1780 with his nineteen-year-old wife isn't right (and it doesn't say that in the cited source at the end of paragraph either). I'm now working on the biography for Sally Buchanan which will hopefully help to clear up certain issues, but this is indeed a very challenging story to tell, as there is so much conflicting information (the time period and region make it difficult). I am committed to helping to get Buchanan's Station over the line as a co-author (not as a reviewer or promoter). I would also be open to a joint DYK submission with Sally Buchanan called out in the hook. Regardless, let's get all the facts in both articles fixed first. (I will be focusing on Sally's for the next couple of days, as I fully expect it will evolve significantly as I comb through and cross-reference each claim.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

Request for Second Opinion: Pinging: Flibirigit, or Onegreatjoke, or Aoidh, or Narutolovehinata5, or Muboshgu. I believe these articles (see Lovely's Purchase; Template:Did you know nominations/Lovely's Purchase as well) are well beyond the threshold for DYK criteria and advancement, and are being held to a much higher standard than necessary: this is not a Good Article review. It has been held up long enough, and I can't keep spending my limited editing time jumping through moving hoops on either of them. Can someone please pass them? Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GenQuest: I think it's fine to seek a second opinion. I would just ask that the next reviewer please be sure to go through and verify each claim line by line, because there were a lot of problems previously, per the discussion above, with failed verification. I will also go through now and mark exactly where I am still finding conflicts. I am also happy to help fix these issues for you. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cielquiparle: You're looking at the wrong things, especially in an case for DYK. There is conflicting info, but it was cited info; and such details can be worked out on its way to a Good Article status. As long as the hooks are duly cited, and other criteria is met, and the rest isn't complete BS, that is what DYK is for. Quick and easy as in the past. These have been painful enough to put me off ever subjesting myself to this procedure again. I've reviewed at least eight or nine articles myself. I know how it works.

The pertinent criteria are:

The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article;

(Once again, that rule is only for the hook fact, not for every sentence in the article...)

The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.

If you want to go through and add new data, that's fine, but should not hold up the DYK process in the meantime. Thanks for your help, BTW. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ referenced

John Hoke III

(

)

... that John Hoke III, the Chief Design Officer of Nike, Inc., has described drawing as his first language (Hoke is dyslexic)? Source: https://timesensitive.fm/episode/john-hoke-on-technology-as-a-co-conspirator-in-creativity/
- ALT0a: ... that John Hoke III, who is dyslexic and the Chief Design Officer of Nike, has described drawing as his first language? Source: https://timesensitive.fm/episode/john-hoke-on-technology-as-a-co-conspirator-in-creativity/
- Reviewed:
- Comment: Please see transcript of cited source interview for specific "hook" reference to Hoke's dyslexia. (He has spoken widely about this, and there are many other sources — several of which are also used in the article.) Thank you, -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to mainspace by Cl3phact0 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

- Comment: ~~Not sure why the article appears as a redlink.~~ (It does exist.) (fixed)

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

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

QPQ: N - Not done
Overall:

A worthwhile bio. Although it's not very long, it's more than just a resume. Hook is interesting and fully substantiated by the only source I needed to look at. As usual, I've done some (very) minor copyediting. Needs a QPQ if the author is not exempt. Otherwise ready to go. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hello Bahnfrend, I may have left my response to yours (re: QPQ) in the wrong place. Just in case, I'll summarize what I said here (apologies for the repetition if it's redundant): Thanks for reviewing the John Hoke article. I will read QPQ, and if eligible I'll gladly oblige. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: QPQ eligibility, please see additional response here. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cl3phact0 Sorry about the very slow response. I have a lot of other things on my mind. I confirm that you're exempt from QPQ. Ready to go. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Comment. This article cannot be promoted until all the "clarification needed" tags have been resolved. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

per Cielquiparle's notes. Also, the hook can't contain parenthetical comments. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for your help! Re: Hoke "Hook" (ehem), would this wording work:

... that John Hoke III, who is dyslexic and the Chief Design Officer of Nike, has described drawing as his first language? Source: https://timesensitive.fm/episode/john-hoke-on-technology-as-a-co-conspirator-in-creativity/

Re: Cielquiparle's comment concerning the "clarification needed" tags (which were placed by me) — these concern details of temporal minutia which I had hoped someone might clarify in the interim (respectively: whether he joined Nike in '92 or '93; and if he was 12 or 13 when he, rather cheekily, wrote to the company's CEO proposing a design concept). I will try to locate a definitive source and update (the Time Sensitive ref seems to answer this, but it's in Hoke's own words, so I wasn't sure vis-à-vis WP:RS). Alternatively, could the tags be replaced with {{Better source needed}} or {{Fact}} tags instead (or simply removed given the relatively minor nature of the discrepancy)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works for me, but I'll leave the final tick to Cielquiparle :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC) (oy, 'Cielquiparle' is a hard name to shorten. If you have a preference, that'd be helpful.)Reply[reply]

@Cl3phact0: This is an important bio – excellent addition to Wikipedia. Appreciate that you found a lot of good sources. The fact that you are a self-tagger also demonstrates attention to detail. I have now rearranged some of the content on the page to conform more or less to standard Wikipedia biography format (of which there is quite a range). I have also expanded the "Early life and education" section to resolve the tag you had there, and added an explanatory notes section where you can discuss any discrepancies between sources. (I used the efn template in visual editor.) As for next steps to get this article in shape for the main page: 1) Careers section. What are the main highlights of Hoke's career at Nike per the sources? Not convinced they are captured in the article yet. 2) Sources. Please make sure you are familiar with WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPSOURCES. I have already removed a couple of sources for various reasons (e.g., one was simply republishing another), but please note that quality of sources matters more than quantity, and there may be other sources you can go ahead and "cull" if they are likely to trigger the BLP police which does NOT tolerate blogs as sources for BLPs, or if they just repeat what other sources say. For this reason as well, it's good to fill out as much of the ref form as you can (e.g., include the author, etc.), so that people know what the actual source is (sometimes you have to read the fine print to understand where the content actually originated). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Cielquiparle. Very helpful advice and counsel. The article is much improved by your contributions. The anecdote about the pool raft is great too! I wonder if Nike put him on the patent application as the inventor, or co-inventor, or something? That would be interesting information. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I have a technical question about the efn template which I'll put on your Talk page, if anyone's interested in these things.

PPS: Thank you also for introducing me to the term "self-tagger" (a practice which seemed self-evident to me, but I gather not to everyone).

@Theleekycauldron: Is it okay to edit the Hoke Hook directly in this thread (i.e., replace the original with the version sans-parenthesis), or is there a different/better way this should be done? Thanks, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cl3phact0: Standard practice is usually to, on a neẇline, suggest an ALT0a ('ALT' meaning "alternate hook", '0a' meaning "slight modification on ALT0"). See Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Riner for an example on how that's done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done (see above). Thank you, theleekycauldron. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cielquiparle, theleekycauldron, what is currently holding up this nomination? Are there issues with ALT0a? Should I be calling for a new reviewer? Thanks for your help in getting this moving forward again. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calling for a new reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Articles created/expanded on January 4

Northeastern Army

(

)

Chiang Kai-shek and Northeastern General Zhang Xueliang

... that Nationalist China's own Northeastern Army kidnapped Chiang Kai-shek (pictured) to convince him to join the Second United Front? Source: Pages 150-169 in Itoh, Mayumi (3 October 2016). The Making of China's War with Japan: Zhou Enlai and Zhang Xueliang. Springer. ISBN 978-981-10-0494-0.
- Reviewed:

5x expanded by SilverStar54 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: N - n
Neutral: Y
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Y Used in article: Y Clear at 100px: Y

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

@SilverStar54

: Good article. However

"In early 1927, the forces of the NPA engaged the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) in Henan and Jiangsu." Needs a citation
"and on 17 October, Yu Zhishan surrendered Eastern Liaoning to the Japanese." Needs a citation
Other notable commanders list should probably be cited.

If you can fix that then I'll pass. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully this is the right spot to respond (first time in the DYK process), but thank you for the quick review. I've revised the article to add sources (or remove unsourced material) where you requested. Let me know if there's any further steps I should take. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot to promote. Hope to see more expansions about the warlord era. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@

could you point as to where in the article we're going with "kidnapping", rather than detainment? Also, where could I find the bit about convincing him to join the second united front? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Theleekycauldron: I feel that either term could be used to describe the events, I chose "kidnapping" just because it's more eye-catching for a hook. Do you feel like that's too much of a creative liberty? About the Second United Front, thank you for pointing that out. I describe it, but I never actually included a link to the Second United Front in that section (fixed now). It's what I'm describing in these two sentences: "By the end of the negotiations, Chiang had verbally promised to end the civil war, to resist the Japanese together, and to invite Zhou to Nanjing for further talks. Although he publicly renounced his promises after being released, he quietly followed through on them over the following months." I think that more detail about the Second United Front would be tangential to the article, but I could add more about the negotiations. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilverStar54: I'd say that "kidnapping" probably has connotations we couldn't back up, but I could be wrong. When you say "join the Second United Front", you don't mean as a card-carrying member? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I guess I feel that "kidnapping" connotates illegally seizing a person, whereas "detaining" implies a legal or official action, such as by the police. This was done by an army, but their actions were perceived as illegal (at least by the Nanjing government). Perhaps "took hostage" works better?

I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "as a card-carrying member". The Second United Front wasn't a political party that you could be a member of, it was just an alliance between the CCP and the KMT to resist the Japanese. Chiang denied that he was bound by his verbal promise to create such an alliance after he was released, but gradually eased hostilities and eventually did sign an official alliance with the Communists after six months of continued negotiations. For political reasons the KMT framed this as a "surrender" by the CCP, but in reality it was an alliance. I'll try to rewrite that section to make it more clear. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any updates on this one? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if they want any changes or not. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilverStar54: the clarifying changes for that section would be welcome :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Just made some more edits. Please take a look at my most recent revision and let me know what parts still need more detail or clarification. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilverStar54: forgive me, my head's been swimming recently – could you point me to the sentences in the article that support the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The section on the Xi'an Incident, specifically the second paragraph:

"In November 1936, Zhang asked Chiang to come to Xi'an to raise the morale of troops unwilling to fight the Communists. When he arrived, Northeastern soldiers overwhelmed his bodyguard and placed him under house arrest. A faction of the army led by Yang Hucheng and the radical young officers of the "Anti-Japanese Comrade Society" wanted to execute Chiang, but Zhang and the Communists insisted that he be kept alive and convinced to change his policy towards Japan and the Communists. They argued that an alliance with Chiang was their best chance to combat the Japanese, while killing him would only provoke retaliation from the Nanjing Government. The Northeastern Army attempted to broadcast 8 demands to the Chinese public explaining why they arrested Chiang and the conditions for his release, but Nationalist censorship prevented their publication outside the Communist-held areas. Nonetheless, Chiang eventually agreed to negotiate with CCP diplomats Zhou Enlai and Lin Boqu. By late December Chiang had given a verbal promise that he would end the civil war and resist Japanese aggression."

As explained in the following paragraph, the alliance between the Communists and Nationalists against the Japanese became known as the Second United Front. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 5

Articles created/expanded on January 9

Jamie Beaton (entrepreneur)

(

)

~~... that New Zealand born entrepreneur Jamie Beaton applied to the world's top 25 universities and received an offer from each?~~ Source: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/how-to-be-accepted-into-a-top-us-uni-by-somebody-who-has-done-it/news-story/982939f4fbffba6b4dafa2ca4ec65a9c#:~:text=When%20Jamie%20Beaton%20was%20finishing,secrets%20in%20a%20new%20book.
- Reviewed:

Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Happy to review this one; I've always had an interest in this guy as a young Kiwi entrepreneur and "tall poppy
", and was impressed by the article and how well-written/neutral it is. Article is new enough, long enough, well-cited and has no other eligibility problems. No issues from Earwig check. QPQ appears to not be required as your second DYK nomination (although please let me know if I've got that wrong!).

The hook is interesting and cited. I note I don't have access to the provided source for the hook as it requires a subscription. I can approve it on an AGF basis but wondered if you could provide me with the wording of the text supporting the hook? (I just want to check that it says this definitively, rather than being simply a claim by Beaton.)

Some minor comments:
- Per MOS:LEADREL, any significant information in the lead should usually be covered in the remainder of the article. I think details about his Harvard degree and that he completed it in only three years fits in this category.
- I'm not sure the two images used in the article add much value or are significant enough to Beaton himself, and I would personally probably not include them, bearing in mind MOS:PERTINENCE.

Thanks again for your great work on this article, and hope all of the above makes sense. Only the request for the text supporting the hook is really critical to me approving the nomination. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Comment. Both the hook and the article have neutrality issues. The source used is a book review that repeats an assertion from Beaton. The world's top 25 universities according to whom? Beaton's business is university preparation; I don't think it's appropriate to repeat this claim in Wikipedia's own voice as it virtually amounts to free advertising. A further claim in the article about Beaton's degrees is totally unsourced. The article also includes several other promotional assertions about Crimson's business. ITBF (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @ITBF: Thanks for your comments! I have added a source for the further claim in the article about his degrees, and done some other tweaks based on sources. As noted, I wanted to check the source wording for the hook before approving, but given that I took a different view on the article's neutrality, I'm going to suggest that a second reviewer be required once the issues I raised have been addressed.
  - @MaxnaCarta: apologies and hope the above is still helpful. I also note that it might be worth double-checking that the degrees listed in the infobox are covered by the sources in the article. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Have found another source for the hook quote, and suggest slight rewording:

ALT0a: ... that New Zealand entrepreneur Jamie Beaton applied to 25 of the top-ranking universities in the world and received an offer from each? Source: "He had actually applied to 25 of the world's highest-ranked universities, and all had said yes." BBC News

Appreciate this doesn't resolve all your concerns, ITBF. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chocmilk03: thanks for the work you did! I think the hook is perfectly appropriate. It is neutral. Not neutral would be "Jamie Beaton achieved the astounding feat of applying to wonderful universities and this makes him special". That he applied to 25 of the worlds top 25 universities is a fact that has been repeated by multiple reliable sources. Now that you sourced the BBC, a perennially reliable source, the hook is appropriate. Regarding "free advertising", I disagree with that premise. Advertising means describing or drawing attention to a product in a public medium in order to promote sales. "In order" is the key word here. Beaton has primarily become notable on the back of his company. Hence, a description of his business empire and what it offers is essential in writing a complete article about him. This may well have the side effect of drawing attention to his business, but the same could be said for an article on a phone that describes its products and features. I have not given undue weight to the business, remained neutral, and also mentioned the legal issues the business has faced. On balance, I see no violation of WP:NOT. @ITBF:, does this address your concerns? If you have any concerns, please could you identify a solution that would address them? I've been on a break for a wee while so haven't got round to applying. Hopefully this is now okay to proceed. Thanks all! MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article is ready for a second reviewer for ALT0a. My assessment as first reviewer was that the article was appropriately neutral, and I remain of this view. I've just made some other amendments to the article (hope you don't mind MaxnaCarta!) to address my concerns above about the lead and because on review there were a few other points that I felt could be stated in a more neutral way (e.g. to say "Crimson states that it does X" instead of "Crimson does X"). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

@Chocmilk03: thanks! Of course I don't mind lol. I do not own the article, and if it did, you're doing my work for me

. Hopefully ITBF will be the seconder if they can. I'm still gonna work through your issues mentioned regardless of the nom, eventually to get it to GA standard. It's probably a way off that though and I'm prioritising another article for GA atm. Cheers for the feedback. All to do is wait now. I hope you are safe and nowhere near Auckland...MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think some more attribution as to whom thinks these are the top 25 would be helpful in the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The source itself says this. Not sure "according to the Australian" would help? Maybe we could change it to "25 of the world's top universities"? Because it is true that the top 25 varies depending on list. Thoughts? I'm open to any suggestions!. @Chocmilk03: any ideas from you? MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...This is actually already the alternative hook already I guess.MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any updates on this? It has been a month since the nomination's last comments. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New reviewer still needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

Articles created/expanded on January 11

Articles created/expanded on January 12

Svante Thunberg

(

)

~~... that Malena Ernman fell in love with Svante Thunberg (pictured), invited him on a first date to see the film Amélie, and within two months was pregnant?~~

Source: Maëlle Brun, Greta Thunberg, la voix qui secoue la planète (L'Archipel, 2020), pp. 12–16 (in French)
- ALT2 ... that Svante Thunberg (pictured) went on a first date with Malena Ernman to see the film Amélie and within two months was happy to be becoming a father?
  Source: as above.
- Reviewed: Eudoro Galindo

New article on redirect by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 09:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Frankly, who cares about anything like that, about anyone? Tabloid garbage. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly not you, SergeWoodzing! It has some impact. But please feel free to suggest something else. Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS Also see recent questionable activity in the article's edit history, the article's talk page and the nominator's talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do see some, but not by me. Moonraker (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator has now drawn h own fantasy picture of Thunberg and uploaded it to Commons in another attempt to push this through. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is your take on it, SergeWoodzing, but I have indeed, although very few images are used, and it makes no difference to whether a nomination is “pushed through”. Please see WP:Civility. I see you have not suggested a better hook yet. Moonraker (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Civility is irrelevant when nothing uncivil has been done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above. Moonraker (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If nothing else, this hook is primarily about Ernman, not Thunberg; I would probably object to its approval and airing. Moonraker, is there another hook that could be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is about both of them, Theleekycauldron, and I can’t see any rule at Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook that says the subject needs to be the main focus, or has to be the doer and not the done-to. We seem to get a lot of hooks that your comment could rule out. Is there a bullet point in that rule you have in mind? Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moonraker: The subject needing to be the main focus is one of the more unwritten rules – come to think it, probably a good addition for the supplementary guidelines. The idea behind it is that narrowing the focus of the hook to the bolded article prevents hooks from being a vehicle for nominators to put whatever they want on the Main Page. We can ask at WT:DYK, if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theleekycauldron, the whole purpose of having written rules is so that people know what they need to comply with, and the judgement can be done consistently and objectively. Having unwritten rules means life is far harder for all of us, and there is less consistency. The main focus thing may be a good idea, but I would suggest getting agreement to build that into the rules we all work with. And here, Thunberg is not exactly incidental to events! Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theleekycauldron, does ALT2 overcome your possible objection? Moonraker (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a matter of fact, Moonraker, that's exactly what WP:DYKSG was meant to be when it was created – DYK develops so many "unwritten rules" that we eventually had to start, well, writing them down. ALT2 is more centered around Thunberg, but now I'm a little worried about it coming across as tabloid-y? Like, there's a lot of people who would judge a couple who got pregnant without getting married after just two months, and I'm worried that we'd look like we're catering to those people. Obviously, there's nothing even remotely about that in the rules, but if you'd be open to workshopping with me, some editorial discretion can't hurt. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am a little concerned about whether the image provided could be seen as a derivative of this image. i can't seem to figure out the copyright status of the latter image, though it appears to have been taken during a press conference at cop24. also, i thought i might submit a proposal centered on svante rather than ernman.
alt1: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not to "save the climate, [but] to save [his] child"?
Moonraker, does this hook seem appropriate? of course, i'll defer to any hooks you'd prefer to propose. dying (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1. dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

Hi, Dying, your image is a photo, and I imagine the copyright belongs to someone who took it. This is a drawing and the copyright is mine. I see no problem with alt1, that was an interesting comment I found and added after creating the nomination. Not sure if you are acting as a reviewer here? If you are, I believe the reviewer needs to check all hooks and say if they are within the rules, someone else later decides which is the best one to go with. Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: in your alt1, the square brackets are awkward, but you could lose them if you also took out the quotation marks. I don’t know that it’s about changing behaviour, what Thunberg says is “I did all these things ... to save my child”. You would need to find a form of words to cover it. Moonraker (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moonraker, the image is clearly either based on that photo, or on a photo or video taken around that time. although you may have modified the original to an extent that the derivative work may be copyrightable, i believe you would still need permission from the copyright holder of the underlying work in order to use this image on the main page. (commons has a page explaining how the laws on derivative works apply to files uploaded to commons.) in any case, i think the point is no longer relevant, considering Legoktm's overriding blp point.

i wasn't sure what exactly "all these things" referred to, but the wording i used is based on the bbc source's phrase "her parents' changes in behaviour", and i believe it is noncommittal enough to avoid being wrong. (i had originally thought about using a phrase like "supported his daughter" before i realized that the bbc source didn't appear to explicitly state this.) i'm not attached to the wording, though, and would be happy to replace it with a better alternative. i had used quotation marks to be able to use svante's construction, but if the square brackets are too distracting, here's an alternative.

alt1b: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not out of concern for the environment, but out of concern for his daughter Greta?

if alt0 or alt2 ends up being accepted and you prefer it over either alt1 or alt1b, i can strike both alt1 and alt1b so that a promoter does not have to decide; i had only proposed alt1 in case alt0 was going to be rejected.

my comment wasn't originally meant as a full review, but i don't mind doing one for you. however, i just noticed that although the article was created from a redirect, the redirect was created as the result of an afd nomination, meaning that another article had existed before the current one. as a result, i do not know enough about the finer points of dyk to determine if this article meets the newness requirement, so am pinging theleekycauldron for help. dying (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1b. dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

I'd say that if consensus previously decided that the topic wasn't fit for a standalone article, and that consensus has now shifted, that counts as new. I think we've come across this at WT:DYK a couple of times, and no one's bothered to write down a rule, but we usually err towards lettin' 'em have it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sounds good. thanks, theleekycauldron. Moonraker, let me know if you would like for me to review the nomination with alt2, or if you would rather me wait while you work with theleekycauldron to develop another hook. dying (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT1'll need its own review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I have removed the image from the article and would also strongly recommend it be removed from this hook too. It's a BLP violation to claim that's what they look like, when they don't look like that! I think it's also close to running afoul of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. Legoktm (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legoktm, I don’t know that it matters very much, but I am very puzzled by your claim of a “BLP violation”. We have Dying saying the image is clearly based on a photo — in fact it isn’t, but that seems to be saying it’s a good likeness — and we have you saying “they don't look like that”. Are you saying that no one living can be represented by anything except a photo, or that this drawing is not good enough? Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moonraker, i agree with Legoktm. the image somewhat resembles svante, but i do not believe it is accurate enough to portray him on the main page without worrying about blp concerns. what made it clear that the image is based on either photo or video taken at the cop24 press conference is how the image depicts svante with similar folds on his shirt, a similar lanyard, and what appears to be a similar microphone clip.

please note that i did not state that you were conscious of the image being based on either a photo or video taken at the press conference when you created it, but merely that it was based on such media. it's possible that you worked off of a photo of a photo taken at that conference, but then your work would have still been based on the original photo. if you have the appropriate rights for the underlying work, then my worries about copyright would be assuaged, but you don't seem to be asserting that. alternatively, i suppose you could have been personally present at the conference and then created this image from memory, but that is admittedly rather difficult to believe.

by the way, the image you recently uploaded to commons of edda göring bears a striking resemblance to a still from a television interview in 1986. dying (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dying, I agree with you about the Edda image, but not the Thunberg one. The microphone clip, sure. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nomination cannot be promoted to the image slot if the relevant image isn't in the article, so that'll have to be worked out one way or another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theleekycauldron, I agree, the image needs to be in the article. If it isn’t there, this could only be promoted without it. Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be happy to review ALT1 or ALT1b, by the way, they seem good at first glance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

theleekycauldron, I have come across reviewers who say they have a preference between hooks, and I do that myself. I’d rather we had a reviewer who just reviewed the hooks on offer. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am not sure if this means that you would prefer to have one editor review all the hooks, rather than just a subset. i obviously cannot review alt1 and alt1b, having proposed them myself, so if you would rather i not provide a full review for you, just let me know. dying (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moonraker: I'll be honest. When you say you'd rather have a reviewer who just reviewed the hooks on offer -- don't you think you sound a little entitled? Being reviewed is a privilege, not a right. We don't have to cater to your preference. BorgQueen (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, BorgQueen. I would agree with you that the final choice of hook is not up to the nominator. I do not think it is "entitled" for a nominator to want his or her hook to be reviewed. I must have checked out four or five hundred hooks myself, and I have never offered to review one I liked, but not the nominator's hook, which I didn't like. On whether being reviewed is a privilege, the system of QPQs means it is not a one-way street. The regulars here surely act in good faith, on the principle of "do as you would be done by". Moonraker (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moonraker: I see your points. Sorry if I sounded slightly blunt earlier. But I must say that I had felt disappointed by the way you rejected the offer from theleekycauldron, and seemingly, the one from Dying as well, which appeared to me unnecessarily selective. BorgQueen (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BorgQueen, naming no names, I did not find all the comments on this page helpful and decided the best thing was to say no more. I agreed with Dying that he should not review his own hooks. Any selectiveness really only came down to thinking my hook was a good one and it was fair enough to want it kept on the table. Moonraker (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moonraker, i was admittedly surprised that you did not mention being okay with me providing a full review, since i obviously cannot approve my own hooks, so can only approve either alt0 or alt2. (i am also surprised by your use of pronouns, but that is less relevant.) i was expecting to approve both alt0 and alt2 (without the image) barring any other major issues, so was also expecting to strike alt1 and alt1b. (i would have also noted theleekycauldron's concerns to the promoter, so that the promoter could bring the issue to wt:dyk if it seemed warranted.) i had interpreted theleekycauldron's offer as a way to allow all the hooks on offer to be reviewed, as she had made the offer after i had made the offer to fully review your nomination, so i was confused as to why you had mentioned a preference for one reviewer to review all the hooks on offer. of course, now that i have explicitly stated to you that i had expected to approve your hooks, i no longer think it is appropriate for me to actually review them, so i will recuse myself from doing so.

to any future reviewer, i will not be offended if you prefer to not review alt1 or alt1b; as i mentioned above, i would prefer to defer to the nominator's hooks, and had only proposed alt1 and alt1b in case the nominator's hooks were rejected. dying (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dying, thank you for your thoughts. I am quite bemused by the twists and turns of this page. I said nothing to disagree with you doing a review. As you know, I don't agree with your objections to the image. You decided it must be derived from a photograph and therefore was a copyright violation of that, but that was all in your imagination. Meanwhile, Legoktm decided it was a BLP violation because it didn't look like Thunberg, and you then agreed with Legoktm. I do not see how you can have it both ways. That is perhaps beside the point, as the hostile removal of the image from the article takes it out of the picture. I doubt if I shall put myself to so much trouble again. Moonraker (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I'd rather we had a reviewer who just reviewed the hooks on offer" suggested that you disagreed with me doing a review.
i am not sure if you are aware that your language appears to be biased. neither Legoktm nor i "decided" that the image was a violation. characterizing Legoktm's action as a "hostile removal" seems unfair to Legoktm.
"that was all in your imagination" seems like an unkind remark to suggest that i am delusional. i don't mind, but considering that i provided prima facie evidence above for everyone else to examine, i imagine that your statement may not have had the effect you intended.
copyright violations and blp violations are not mutually exclusive. placing a copyrighted film frame of daniel radcliffe as harry potter in the infobox of the article on elijah wood would presumably also violate both.
yes, i noticed that you stated "This is a drawing and the copyright is mine" rather than "I drew this". my comments were carefully worded to leave you an out, but you never took it.
another editor removed your image of göring from the article on her, but you reverted the removal. to me, this is beginning to feel like a wp:1am situation.
if you did not find all the comments helpful, it may be useful to review them, keeping in mind that most, if not all, of them had been intended to be helpful. i had commented to try to hint to you that you should withdraw the image before others did it for you, but i see that i have failed. i only suggested alt1 because it looked like alt0 was headed for a quick fail, and wanted to save your submission.
i have struck alt1 and alt1b to make any potential reviewer's job easier. you are welcome to reinstate them if alt2 is not approved.

dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, myself and another user have both objected to ALTs 0 and 2 on the grounds that they take a tabloid-style approach to the personal life of a BLP. DYK reviews usually operate on a consensus of two, but with prior objections, a review wouldn't be enough to stamp either hook. If you'd like to go to WT:DYK, try to get a different consensus, that's up to you. If you're not okay with ALTs 1 and 1b, then this nomination currently has no hooks that can be stamped by review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

theleekycauldron, thanks for pointing out that a review would not have been sufficient to greenlight a hook in this case; i had not previously realized that. dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moonraker: If you are unable to agree on alternative hook proposals, or are unable to propose a hook that would meet consensus, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, I am only the nominator here, there has been no review, we are waiting for someone to review any of the hooks on offer. As it happens, I have made no objection to the hook suggested by dying, as improved, though I would not choose it myself. My objection was simply that I did not want it made the only option. Two questions for you, please. (1) Will you explain why I am obliged to "agree on alternative hook proposals", simply because theleekycauldron has personal objections to a hook which has not been reviewed? (2) When you say "the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful", do you mean you will do that, and if so can you please give a link to the DYK rule that says that will happen and who can do it? Moonraker (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point is simply if no suitable hook is agreed on, then yes the nomination can be closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moonraker: All righty, let's see if we can't get this show on the road. What needs to happen for this nomination is at least one of two things:

You can lift your request not to have dying's ALTs reviewed on their lonesone.
You can dispute one or more of the objections made on this nomination at WT:DYK, and attempt to secure a consensus to approve one of your hooks on offer.

Right now, no single reviewer can approve any of the hooks in this nomination, because there are one or more objections to each hook that would require a broader consensus to overturn. So, letting this nomination wait in DYKN isn't the best idea. Moonraker, what's your next move? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

theleekycauldron, since dying struck out both his alts, my ALT2 is the only hook on offer, and there is nothing to stop anyone at all from reviewing that. I see dying said that was "to make any potential reviewer's job easier. you are welcome to reinstate them if alt2 is not approved." There is also nothing to stop you or anyone else from suggesting any other hook you like. You have made a personal objection to my hook which you have not related to any DYK rule, and you are not willing to review that; I can only guess why that might be. As it happens, I see nothing "tabloid-style" about it, and it clearly isn't a BLP violation. If it were, you would have removed the facts from the article at once, and you haven't done that. We are simply waiting for a reviewer who will either agree with dying and me that ALT2 is within the rules or else find the DYK rule against it that we haven't seen yet. Then we can take it from there. Moonraker (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@
ah, okay, I can review. In the article, the information is sourced from a book that was published by a less-than-reputable source – I don't really want to edit this article, but I can't exactly figure out why a publisher with less than 200 works and a first-time author make a reputable fact-checked work that constitutes due weight on a BLP's personal life. If we get past that, I'll leave a note at WT:DYK asking about whether DYK wants to run the hook, because sometimes that's an inherently subjective decision the community has to make, and doesn't need to be based on any other rule in the book. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
That makes a start, Theleekycauldron. I am sure there is nothing in policy that objects to first-time authors, even if that is correct. Is there any reliable source for the claim that Archipel is a less-than-reputable publisher? Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moonraker: By default, works aren't reliable sources – it'd be on you to show that the publisher has a reputation for publishing reliable biographical content that other works rely on, or otherwise expressing that the book has academic heft. Is this book widely cited in established RSes? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
theleekycauldron, these seem to be tests you have thought up for yourself, as I do not find them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which suggests a number of factors to be considered, and then editors are to judge whether they can rely on a source. You claim you have decided that this particular book, published by Archipel, is not acceptable because Archipel is "less-than-reputable". If you have evidence to support that, then no problem, your judgement will have some substance and I can go along with it, but do you? The burden is on you to make your case, not on me to prove you wrong. If you have no such evidence, then you are showing clear bias, if not dishonesty, and what you have said is defamatory of Archipel. In that case, you should apologize and withdraw from the page. Moonraker (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moonraker: By "less-than-reputable", I mean that to include "doesn't have an established reputation". Showing a source as reliable under WP:RS, which says that Articles should be based on... published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, requires proponents to demonstrate that the source does in fact have that reputation. The absence of one simply does not count – otherwise, everyone would be a subject matter expert. The reason I bring up being cited by others is that WP:USEBYOTHERS would be a likely path to reliability for a source that has somehow had a breakout reputation despite the low counts I noted before, if you can demonstrate it. Another path would be WP:RSCONTEXT's statement: In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Can you demonstrate some kind of fact-checking or editorial control? Maybe this is the author's first venture into the book world, and has previously published in academic journals, making them a subject-matter expert? I'm not asserting that this source is unreliable or disreputable, I just can't find any evidence to support that it is reliable or reputable. Could you help me out? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 15

Sujudi

(

)

... that in 1996, Indonesian health minister Sujudi called the government's campaign to promote condom use as "culturally unacceptable"? Source: Indonesia 'risks huge surge in Aids orphans'
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Volin
- Comment: Special thanks to Juxlos for suggesting this hook off-wiki.

Moved to mainspace by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 06:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The article is new enough and long enough. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found in spotchecks (most are non-English anyway). QPQ is done. However, the hook as it stands will not work, it attributes a direct quote that is both a different wording to the one in the source, and which the source does not note as a direct quote. CMD (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

@Chipmunkdavis: how about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT0a: ... that Indonesian health minister Sujudi objected to the government's campaign to promote condom use?
- "rejected" a "proposed plan" might work. CMD (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Jeromi Mikhael? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I think ALT0a is ok. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - CMD, are there any more issues? Is this ready? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Alt0a is as written incorrect. A reformulation may work but I don't think I should do that myself as the reviewer. CMD (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Chipmunkdavis: I'm not sure what you mean; nothing I can see in the Guardian piece explicitly says that Sujudi used his government authority to kill the plan. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        The way I interpret the Guardian article aligns with the article text, "There were suggestions to initiate a government campaign of condom usage", rather than there being a plan. I did a bit of digging, the information seems quite vague, but this source says that while there was a official position on condoms as early as 1996 among the health department it was not something that was really implemented. CMD (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 17

Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma

(

)

... that in 2001, six University of Indonesia students successfully sued rector Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma after they were suspended for leading a protest against the rector's tuition fee policy? Source: UI students sue rector over suspensions, Court annuls rector's suspension decision
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Noble Maillard

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: I've struck ALT0, as I believe it falls afoul of DYK's rule on articles and hooks covering living persons. I think another hook will need to be proposed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Theleekycauldron: Any explanation on which clause do I violate with this hook? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - From WP:DYK#gen4a: Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Jeromi Mikhael: can another hook be provided, so that a reviewer can chime in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - ALT1: ... that former rector Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma would sometimes use train to commute the campus in order to listen in criticisms about the campus? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - @Theleekycauldron: How about this? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Jeromi Mikhael, QPQs must be provided no later than 7 days after submitting a nomination; it's been 25 days. Please complete your QPQ right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @BlueMoonset: I've added a QPQ for the nomination. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1 looks passable; article will need a full review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
- @Jeromi Mikhael and Theleekycauldron: ALT1 seems a bit redundant since it mentions "campus" twice. How about this alternative wording?

ALT2 ... that when he was rector of the University of Indonesia, Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma would commute via public transportation to the campus to listen to criticisms about the school?

I changed "train" to "public transportation" as the article doesn't specifically mention trains. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Review coming.~~

New enough, long enough, neutral and appears well cited (mostly in Indonesian). Copyedited as I read, but a few minor remaining questions for @Jeromi Mikhael: Is it appropriate to link "undergraduate medical degree" to Medical degree

? Should "academician" (3x) be changed to "administrator"? What happened after the suspension saga - it seems unresolved? Added back the mention of train, so my preference for hook (also restoring "sometimes") would be:

ALT2a ... that when he was the rector of the University of Indonesia, Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma would sometimes take the train to the campus to overhear criticism of the school?

Very close to approval. AGF on the since-deleted QPQ. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 20

Star Control

(

)

... that Paul Reiche and Fred Ford created the 1990 space game Star Control by adapting the action-strategy gameplay from Reiche's 1983 game Archon into a science fiction setting? Source: "I wanna mention that, and it was obvious to us, because we intended it that way, but "Starchon" is really "Archon" with an S-T in front of it. "Archon" being a strategy game on top of a one-on-one combat game and that's what "Star Control I" was."[2]

"The first Star Control is actually somewhat similar in concept to one of Reiche III and Ford’s earlier games, Archon, in that it’s a strategy game where conflict is resolved via action-based one-on-one combat. (It could even be termed a spiritual successor, given that it’s even in the title – “StAR CONtrol”.)"[3]

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cherry Valentine

Improved to Good Article status by Shooterwalker (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook eligibility:

Cited: Y
Interesting: ?

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Excellent work improving the article to GA status. QPQ done. ~~The only thing that needs to be adjusted is the ALT, which is not immediately enticing to somebody unfamiliar with the subject or its creators.~~ CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I'm open minded. I've done a few of these and I was starting to feel a little repetitive with "did you know that this was considered one of the best games because...?" I figured I would try to link it to another historic game, but I can see how that might be inaccessible to someone who isn't into games. Let me know what you think, and I'll come up with something either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giving @CurryTime7-24: a ping. I'm good to keep working on this, depending on your feedback. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very sorry for leaving you hanging, my friend. Let me jump back into this DYK tomorrow. Been slammed with work, but things are lightening up again. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shooterwalker: The article itself is tip-top. I just think the hook is a little staid and wouldn't be rewarding for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I would offer my own ALTs, but don't want to disqualify myself as reviewer by doing so. That said, there is a lot of material in this article that could be mined for appealing ALTs. For example, this passage alone seems like it could generate two very effective ALTs: "When they saw that the Syreen ship resembled a cross between a rocket ship and a ribbed condom, Fred Ford suggested calling it the Syreen Penetrator, which coincidentally happened moments before the 1989 San Francisco Earthquake." —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT1: ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control designed a starship for an all-female alien race, naming it the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom, moments before an earthquake?
I liked your suggestion, and I wanted to get the phrasing right. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for being MIA again. Was out of town, then got caught up in other articles I've been working on. Your revised ALT is better, but it still needs a bit of work. I would trim down the overlinking of well-known things and maybe remove the reference to the Loma Prieta quake. Ideally the ALT would focus either on the unusual appearance of the starship or the timing of its naming, but not both as it might be a bit much. Feel free to ping me. I'll be able to respond in a timelier fashion now that I have more time. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT2 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control designed a starship for an all-female alien race, naming it the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom?

ALT3 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control named a starship the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom, moments before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake?

@CurryTime7-24: Having trouble deciding so I gave each one a try. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Both ALTs are wonderful! Thank you for your patience with me and for your excellent work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

This needs more work, as I've checked the sources cited in the article, and they do not exactly verify the specific claims made in ALT2 and ALT3 (and in the sentences where they are cited in the article). Pinging CurryTime7-24. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Articles created/expanded on January 23

Lewis Manly

(

)

Manly in college

... that despite having never played the sport before, Lewis Manly (pictured) tried out for his college's football team, made the squad, and went on to become one of the best linemen of his time? Source: [4] ("Manly found his way to Wooster as an undergraduate in 1921 and decided to go out for the football team as a freshman, despite never playing the sport previously. Four years later, he was considered one of the star linemen of his time.") (in case you're wondering its reliability, it appears to be (besides the images) a copy of [5] from Wooster College, which is certainly reliable)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Korey Foreman

Moved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

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

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: N - Concerns about a source
Neutral: Y
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

QPQ: N - Not done
Overall:

@BeanieFan11: Good article but I concerns about the reliability of Woosterhalloffame. If a reason as to why it's reliable can be provided then I could approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Onegreatjoke: the woosterhalloffame website is published by the College of Wooster – AFAIK sources published by universities in the US are considered reliable. I'll try to get a qpq done soon, although I've got a lot going on between real life and mass afds in my topic area so it may take some time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BeanieFan11: It's been over a week since the last comment here: a QPQ needs to be done if you still wish to continue this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Onegreatjoke: Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Korey Foreman as a QPQ. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming that the sources are good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Sorry, I'm pulling this from prep. The article (including the hook) is based largely on an unattributed page hosted at https://shootermcgavin.com, a booster site with no visible editorial oversight, and indeed nothing to indicate who writes anything on it, and (contrary to what's said above) no evidence of being "published by the College of Wooster". (Shooter McGavin was the villain in the Adam Sandler film Happy Gilmore
.) The page opens with
Lewis F. Manly is part of the lore at two of today's most prestigious small colleges in the United States‚ The College of Wooster, recognized year-in and year-out as one of the top-75 liberal arts institutions in the country, and Tufts University, widely considered one of the nation's leading research universities.

There's no way such a page is a reliable source for anything, and certainly not for unattributed opinions such as he was considered one of the star linemen of his time and nine total varsity letters, the all-time record at the school -- which isn't even what the (unreliable) source says, which is he had nine varsity letters, which was a Wooster all-time high at the time, according to some historians (underlining added).

And to really rub it in, what first attracted me to this was the hook, which suffers from two WP:ELEVARs ("football" -- "the sport"; "team" -- "the squad"), a "went on to", plus the dreaded despite [6].

... that despite having never played the sport before, Lewis Manly (pictured) tried out for his college's football team, made the squad, and went on to become one of the best linemen of his time?

E Eng 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EEng: As I said, it (besides the images) is a copy of [7], published by Wooster College (see the first sentence: Lewis F. Manly is part of the lore at two of today's most prestigious small colleges in the United States ‚ The College of Wooster, recognized year-in and year-out as one of the top-75 liberal arts institutions in the country, and Tufts University, widely considered one of the nation's leading research universities. What would you suggest the hook be? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we don't know who's copying who, but either way that just makes things worse. If it's the website of the college calling itself one of today's most prestigious small colleges in the United States, then the whole thing is just plain boosterism. Forget the hook until the article itself is sourced to reliable sources only. I'm not even sure he'd pass GNG -- for example, IIRC Marquis' Who's Who is a vanity publisher and not evidence of notability (though this might not have been true 50 years ago -- we'd have to check at WP:RSN). E Eng 17:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's most certainly notable (I didn't even add the Who's Who ref) – Manly served 16 years as a CFB head coach, received a NYT obit, and has been covered significantly numerous times. I still don't see why Wooster College would be an unreliable source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many years he served is irrelevant -- only coverage matters. You do have the Who's Who in the article, and the NYT obit is a single sentence [8]. "He's been covered significantly numerous times" -- list them (and please, no more one-sentence obits). I explain above why an unsigned page of boosterism isn't reliable. He may very well be notable but at this point it's far from "certainly". E Eng 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Here are a few sources for you, I can probably search out a few more as well.

Canton Daily News "The only three letter man in the class... played guard in football and was Wooster's outstanding lineman."

Evening Independent Newspaper "Professor Lewis Frederick Manly coach at Tufts College awarded the Varsity T for his work in life and for his record of achievement."

East Liverpool Review Newspaper 9 varsity letters Bruxton (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also regarding Wooster, U.S. News & World Report list of National Liberal Arts Colleges Rankings - College of Wooster Wooster, OH #76 National Liberal Arts Colleges.

"From the experts at The Princeton Review" The Best 373 Colleges

Forbes #66 In Liberal Arts Universities Bruxton (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EEng, BeanieFan11, and Onegreatjoke: What is happening with this nomination? Bruxton (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion this should be good to go, as the sources you've shown (thanks) clearly prove that the school has been highly ranked and so an article written by it mentioning that should not be deemed unreliable under the offense of it being "plain boosterism" (whatever that means...) BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article relies heavily on an unsigned article of unknown provenance, hosted on a website named after a Happy Gilmore character, and which was either copied from what might be an official Wooster site, or the reverse, but we can't tell which; try asking at WT:DYK if you like. And I asked you to list the sources qualifying him for notability, but haven't got an answer on that. E Eng 01:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that there hasn't been progress on the nomination in weeks, I'd recommend marking for closure if the issues remain unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd argue this should be promoted – the article on ShooterMcGavin.com is published by the "W" Association of Wooster College, which selects its hall of fame and other things, [9]; it should be reliable, I've never seen an issue with college's hall of fame websites as sources. And Bruxton has proved false EEng's claim that it is "plain boosterism," and those were the two arguments against posting. This should be ready to go in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging two experienced football DYK users for their thoughts: @Cbl62 and PCN02WPS:. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 25

Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra

(

)

... that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra was founded at İzmir in 2015 after an example in Venezuela to educate music for children with limited opportunities and to keep them away from crime? Source: "İzmir'de dar gelirli ailelerin çocuklarının suçtan uzak kalmasını sağlamak amacıyla 2015'te ilk adımları atılan Barış Çocuk Senfoni Orkestrası ..." , "Venezuela'nın başkenti Karacas'ın dezavantajlı bölgelerinde yürütülen "El Sistema" projesini örnek aldıklarını ..." (in Turkish) [10]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/James Danandjaja

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 11:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

I have concerns. First off, usual disclaimer that Wikipedia's coverage of "local" topics can be woefully lacking, especially local topics in areas without much English-language media. So your work expanding that area is genuinely appreciated. That said...
I don't know Turkish. However, some of this article doesn't seem to be accurate or proportionate interpretations of the sources. For example, Kadifekale is linked, and nom added a section to that article on the youth orchestra. But the Wikipedia article and the newspaper source are obviously not talking about the same thing - the Wikipedia article is talking about a historic ruined castle, while the newspaper article seems to refer to it as a troubled neighborhood. I recognize that the neighborhood is probably named after the castle (or they're both named after the same thing), but the point remains, it's off-topic. The same is true of Agora of Smyrna, where the linked article is a heritage site and not a neighborhood. But more generally, even if there was a neighborhood to link, it's literally one word in the sourced newspaper article, with no context or explanations. I don't think it's due weight to copy it over here. More generally, I'm inclined to think that this article is much too long. It's including trivial details like specific grants from the webpage of a non-profit (Sivil Toplum Destek Vakfi), which just isn't Wikipedia-relevant: we should be using secondary sources. Most of the newspaper articles are short and inconsequential. The longest newspaper article is still a bit of a "culture beat" filler-type article about some local organization, and while I'm not one of them, certainly some Wikipedians would probably call this a WP:NOTNEWS violation for expanding a common newspaper story into a Wikipedia article. I'm not saying the article should go to AFD, but I do think if cleaned up, the article would be 4 sentences long, and essentially say that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra is a local orchestra in Izmir, skipping out on all the news/PR type material. Such a cleaned-up article would then fail DYK length requirements. I'm inclined to think that the article needs some more substantive sources than what it has currently to qualify on grounds of verifiability and length. (But happy to help if such sources are found!) SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Also, the ALT is too unfocused currently, but the article issues are more important. I would suggest something more cutting and to the point if we're highlighting the surprise of Turkey-Venezuela cross-pollination, if the article ends up in shape to go to DYK after all:
  - ALT1: ... that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra in Turkey is inspired by a similar music program in Venezuela?
    - Nonsense! CeeGee 07:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - @CeeGee: what makes you say that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

theleekycauldron The point is that for the founding of the orchestra in Turkey, the example in Venezuela has been taken, where children are kept away from crime through music. The military music is irrelevant. I don't know how do you come on this argument. CeeGee 05:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Shorter hooks are more memorable. The part about keeping kids away from crime is the feel-good "meal" for people who click the article to read it. The DYK hook is just the interesting part, it's a teaser, and the closest to a teaser is an interesting juxtaposition between Venezuela & Turkey. The less distracting parts, the better.
If someone else wants to review the DYK, they're free too - I made some minor edits for clarity and concision. I would probably cut it down even further if I full followed my preferences per above, but tried to keep it to non-controversial stuff. SnowFire (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SnowFire I appreciate very much your edits in the article. However, I don't agree with the Alt-hook at all. If you wish to transfer the DYK-nom to someone else, you can use the "DYK?again" tick. CeeGee 05:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it stands, SnowFire, this nomination is marked for closure. Are the issues irreparably prohibitive for DYK purposes? Iff so, CeeGee, do you agree? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion this is still too minor for DYK but then I believe that DYK should have somewhat stricter standards than others. That said, I'll let someone else take a fresh look if desired.

On the hook comment, I still believe my ALT1 is better than the original hook if there's a desire to run this after all. I get it that it doesn't include the "keep kids away from crime" part but DYK hooks have to be interesting and "punchy". The content of the article will fill readers in on the crime-prevention aspect. Concise hooks are also much better than long ones, so restricting to the one, most interesting thing helps. SnowFire (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 27

Untitled Goose Game

(

)

~~... that the idea for Untitled Goose Game came from a stock photo of a goose posted into the developer's internal communications?~~ Source: Tweet by a lead developer at the game developer, House House: https://twitter.com/mjmcmaster/status/763596145452912640
- ALT1: ... that the Untitled Goose Game was not originally meant to have music, but they changed their mind after the trailer received praise for using Debussy's prelude Minstrels in a "reactive" way? Source: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/358217/Road_to_the_IGF_House_Houses_Untitled_Goose_Game.php
- ALT2: ... that the developers of the Untitled Goose Game used the targeted mission structure of the Hitman games because, "By removing the violence from it, we just let the situations exist as a joke,"? Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49852317
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Olde White Harte

Improved to Good Article status by MyCatIsAChonk (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Untitled Goose Game, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Added italics in ALT1, changed the link in ALT2 from Hitman to Hitman (franchise). GoingBatty (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook eligibility:

Cited: N - not for the first hook.
Interesting: Y

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@MyCatIsAChonk: Good article. But I'm not seeing the first hook be supported by the source. Onegreatjoke (talk

) 01:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC) @Onegreatjoke: The lead section is not cited, but the fact is mentioned down in under "Development and release": The game originated from a stock photograph of a goose that an employee posted in the company's internal communications, which sparked a conversation about geese. The citation is for a Tweet from the lead game dev at House House (the company that made Untitled Goose Game).Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Are there any other changes you'd like me to make? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the previous reviewer hasn't responded for a few days, I'm going to give it the holy tick.

I prefer the ALT2. BorgQueen (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@BorgQueen: Now that I think about it, this has some seriously good potential for an April Fools hook. If it's not too late in the game, here are some proposals:

ALT3: ... that geese make good protagonists?

Source and context: The protagonist of the game is a goose; the idea came from a stock photo of a goose posted in the game dev's Slack chat. Source is a Tweet by a dev at the company: https://twitter.com/mjmcmaster/status/763596145452912640.

ALT4: ... that Debussy is still hip?

Source and context: The music in the game is derived from a Debussy prelude. Verge article: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/23/20879792/untitled-goose-game-nintendo-switch-debussy

ALT5: ... that geese can be hitmen too?

Source and context: One of the games that was used as inspiration was the Hitman franchise for its targeted-mission style (as shown in the original ALTs). Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49852317

An image of a goose would make sense for 3 nd 5 (here's some possibilities: one and two). If it's not too late, I think this would be really great. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amusing, sure, if you're willing to wait until April. BorgQueen (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BorgQueen: Would you mind moving it to the April Fools page? Is there a specific way I should do it? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Cielquiparle and Theleekycauldron: What do you guys think? BorgQueen (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @BorgQueen: we have lots of leeway on April Fools' Day for hooks, but stating jokes or quotes in wikivoice isn't usually something we screw around with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - @Theleekycauldron: Respectfully, I don't feel that any of the April Fools' ALTs are twisting quotes; the only one that could possibly be close to that is ALT5, but that's a generalized statement in the article, not a quote. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - The issue isn't that we're twisting the quote, MyCatIsAChonk, it's that we're repeating a quote without saying it's a quote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC) hey, my apologies for being curt. I was frustrated about something in the meatspace, and it's totally not fair that I radiated that out here. if we could find another quirky part of such a funky game, that'd be great :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Theleekycauldron: It's all good; I've struck through the ALT0 through ALT2 because they're not April Fools' hooks, and ALT5 because of the quote issue. ALT3 and ALT4 are spinning the nature of the game. Personally, I prefer ALT4, but I do realize that it's less about the game and more about the music of it. Thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @MyCatIsAChonk: don't ALTs 3 and 4 also express opinions in wikivoice? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Theleekycauldron: In my opinion, "Debussy is still hip" is not a very wikivoice-like statement. Though, I do understand how ALT3 is, so I struck through it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, thanks for striking ALT3. Could you explain how ALT4 doesn't express an opinion? (By default, a statement is made in wikivoice unless we attribute it to someone else). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Comparing it to the criteria under WP:VOICE, ALT4 is not an opinion (while I don't consider it a fact, I believe it's a rephrasing of a fact, the fact being that Debussy's music is still used today), it's not seriously contested, it's not a definite fact, not judgmental, and doesn't give undue weight to something. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This DYK nomination needs a hook that can get approved. Not too late for April Fool's Day consideration but it has to pass. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Theleekycauldron: Is there anything else you think should be changed? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "hip" means "cool"/"trendy" more than it means "current", the latter being more tonally charged. So, unfortunately, I stand by my dissatisfaction with ALT4 unfortunately, but let me see if I can't scare up a hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is really tortured, but:

ALT5: ... that the ganders taken at Untitled Goose Game were mostly positive?

I think this would be a standard quirky hook, rather than an AFDay. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: At this point I'd just like it to get on the main page, so yeah, that's good. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 29

Lovely's Purchase

(

)

... that President James Monroe had promised an exclusive "... gateway to the setting sun ... where they were not surrounded by the White man" to the eastern Cherokee that resulted in the creation of Lovely's Purchase? Source: Gabler, Ina (1960). "Lovely's Purchase and Lovely County". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 19 (1): 31–39. doi:10.2307/40038035. ISSN 0004-1823. JSTOR 40038035.
- ALT1: ... that Lovely's Purchase, set in the early Arkansaw Territory, was created as a buffer zone to separate the adversarial Cherokee and Osage Indian Nations? Source: "Encyclopedia of Arkansas". Encyclopedia of Arkansas. Retrieved 2023-01-23. "Osage territory passed to Cherokees through Lovely's Purchase". Muskogee Phoenix. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
- ALT2: ... that President James Monroe had promised the Cherokee tribes an exclusive "... gateway to the setting sun ... where they were not surrounded by the White man" that resulted in the creation of Lovely's Purchase in what is today Oklahoma and Arkansas? Source: Gabler, Ina (1960). "Lovely's Purchase and Lovely County". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 19 (1): 31–39. doi:10.2307/40038035. ISSN 0004-1823. JSTOR 40038035.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Niue Nukutuluea

Created by GenQuest (talk). Self-nominated at 15:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lovely's Purchase, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook eligibility:

Cited: Y
Interesting: Y
Other problems: N - Where is hook 1? See comments below. GenQuest ^"scribble"

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@GenQuest

: Good article, but I can't seem to find the first hook anywhere in the article.

Onegreatjoke: See first sentence in the "Background" sub-section. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I added and additional ALT that I think reads better than the first. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GenQuest: I wanted to promote this but was wondering why the last sentence of the "Major Lovely" paragraph didn't have a citation...thought it was probably an easy fix...then found that I can't seem to find a source referring to Lovely's multi-step purchase starting in 1813? I don't doubt that it exists somewhere, but I'm not seeing it in the Agnew article, in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, or Muskogee Phoenix. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cielquiparle: I fixed the confusion and mixed-up dates. Thanks for pointing it out. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status please? GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GenQuest I haven't had a chance to re-review the article line by line, as that would take some time, but I haven't blocked it from being promoted either, so if it looks ok to another editor, it could still get promoted by someone else in the meantime. (Regardless, it generally takes a long time for hooks to get promoted, unless the hook is so amazing that everyone is clamoring to promote it first.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Second Opinion: Pinging: Flibirigit, or Onegreatjoke, or Aoidh, or Narutolovehinata5, or Muboshgu. I believe these articles (see Buchanan's Station; Template:Did you know nominations/Buchanan's Station as well) are well beyond the threshold for DYK criteria and advancement, and are being held to a much higher standard than necessary: this is not a Good Article review. They have been held up long enough, and I can't keep spending my limited editing time jumping through moving hoops on either of them. Can someone please pass them? Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My general feeling is that this article is in better shape than the other one (on Buchanan's Station), following the fixes mentioned above which hopefully resolved the failed verification and missing citation issues. I would also appreciate another reviewer to look at this closely, and provide a green tick mark if it looks ok. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Articles created/expanded on January 30

Airis Computer

(

)

... that Airis Computer Corporation designed their 1991 laptop with the ability to have its BIOS updated via a modem connection? Source: "For Chicago-based Airis, the bright idea is TeleROM, says Steve Valentor, engineering vice president. All Airis computers have built-in modems, and by combining that capability with a bank of flash memory that stores system BIOS, Airis can offer users a highly desired feature: instantly updatable BIOS. Simply by dialing into Airis's bulletin board, users will be able to update their BIOS for a nominal charge" (Shandle 1990).
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hixxy

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 20:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Airis Computer, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

@DigitalIceAge: Firstly, it's been a week since the nomination, so a QPQ must be provided as soon as possible for the nomination to pass. Secondly, the hook seems to require specialist knowledge: it requires readers to know that modem connections and computer updates via such technologies was still new in 1991. Maybe something less specialist can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
- @Narutolovehinata5: Apologies for the absence of QPQ, got majorly sidetracked on here. Perhaps:
  - ALT1: ... that the president of Airis Computer Corporation was previously the head of a chain of picture-framing stores?
  - ALT2: ... that Airis Computer's 1991 laptop could have been powered with 10 C batteries as an alternative to a rechargeable pack?
- DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I suppose ALT1 works (ALT2 is also a decent hook but I think ALT1 is more unusual). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I do have a minor concern with the article: maybe the sentence The product was met with a number of delays, and Airis fizzled before the company could sell many (or any) units of the laptop. can be rewritten? I'm not sure if "fizzled" is an encyclopedic term, and so is the use of "(or any)". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Replaced fizzled with dissolved and removed parentheses. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. However, now that I think about it, I wounder if that part should be rewritten entirely; rereading the article, the claim that none were sold was never confirmed, but a claim by two separate publications. Maybe the lede should be modified to reflect that it was a claim? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if MOS:CLAIM applies or not, but I have reworded the last couple of sentences in the lede to reflect the uncertainty. Thanks for the suggestion @Narutolovehinata5:. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That part just needs a few minor grammar-related copyedits and this will be ready for a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full review needed; if grammar-related copyedits are still needed, they can be noted as part of the full review. Ping to nominator DigitalIceAge. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

While the article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been done, and while ALT1 (my preferred hook) is cited inline (and verified in the sources), I do have some concerns with the article. Apart from the earlier-mentioned need for a copyedit, I also note that the claim that the company folded in 1993 is only mentioned in the lede and the infobox, and is not mentioned in the body. It also lacks a reference. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Thanks again for the review @Narutolovehinata5: I have given the article a copyedit and removed the semicolon between the clauses of the hook fact sentence to make it directly cited. I also tweaked the wording wrt the defunct date to be less definitive. Let me know if any other tweaks need to be made. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

(

)

... that It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water explores the theme of water and was inspired by Phil Elverum's visits to the ocean? [11]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/30 West 44th Street

Improved to Good Article status by PerfectSoundWhatever (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Comment am the article's author. The original hook was factually incorrect, so I've substituted it above. Please add more if you'd like, @Onegreatjoke:. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviewing... Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

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

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: Y
Neutral: Y
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: ?

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@Onegreatjoke: Article promoted to GA on Jan 30 and nominated on Feb 4. It is long enough and everything is backed by sources. Hook meets the length requirement, it is interesting and cited in the article. QPQ done. Copyvio is a bit too high at 48.7%, I'd recommend trimming down Elverum's quotes from the KEXP source. Sebbirrrr (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Not done. What's the point of chasing an arbitrary number when it doesn't reflect the true state of the article? Most of the "flagged" passages on Earwig are just the album title. There are a handful of quotes I used, (which are properly shown as quotes and clearly not copyvio) but I don't think anything I did is violating a Wikipedia policy; point me to one if I'm wrong. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @PerfectSoundWhatever: Apologies for not pinging you as well! This isn't a policy violation as you indicated that the quotes are directly coming from Elverum. I did notice that the album title appears four times, however I still think that some of the quotes could be paraphrased as copyvio flags the source as being in the yellow area. Sebbirrrr (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blue Marine Foundation

(

)

... that the Blue Marine Foundation was founded as a legacy of the 2009 documentary film The End of the Line? Source: https://archive.ph/20130419013751/http://www.spearswms.com/good-life/general/26182/the-importance-of-being-ernesto.thtml
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of George Washington Taking the Salute at Trenton

5x expanded by Arcahaeoindris (talk). Nominated by Paul2520 (talk) at 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Blue Marine Foundation, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

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

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: N - concerns
Neutral: Y
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y

Hook eligibility:

Cited: Y
Interesting: N - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@Arcahaeoindris and Paul2520: So i have some concerns. Firstly, the hook isn't really that interesting. I would like for you to propose another one. Second, how many of these sources are reliable. I'm not really familiar with these sources so apologies if i'm too harsh but what makes super yacht times (The link says page not found) and slow life symposium (i can't reach the site) reliable? Also, like half the sources have links yet these links either take me to 404 error pages or the home screen of the news source and not the actual citation. I would like some explanations for this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I also took a look at the article with the intent of possibly suggesting a new hook, but I noticed that the article appeared to have some minor possibly NPOV-violating wording, almost making it read like some kind of advertisement. Phrasing like "On a smaller scale, BLUE was instrumental in July 2012 in the creation of a unique alliance between fishermen and conservationists" and perhaps the whole section may need to be checked for tone. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I'd like to make clear that this article was split off from a longstanding section of George Duffield (film-maker). I did not write much of the text here or find the sources, and made this clear in the edit history. I'll nevertheless try and fix the 404 links using the dead link fixing tool. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke and Archaeoindris: Any updates on this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arcahaeoindris: Re-ping due to typo. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 31

Powell Marsh Wildlife Area

(

)

Trumpeter swans landing on the Vista Flowage

... that water control structures built in the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area introduced iron floc to a downstream lake? Source: https://www.wxpr.org/news/2021-09-23/the-fight-continues-slimy-water-dam-disagreements-and-politics-on-dead-pike-lake
- ALT1: ... that the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area is partially managed by the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa? Source: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Fishing/ceded
- ALT2: ... that water control structures built in the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area polluted a downstream lake? Source: https://www.wxpr.org/news/2021-09-23/the-fight-continues-slimy-water-dam-disagreements-and-politics-on-dead-pike-lake
- Reviewed:
- Comment: The image caption can probably be changed to something that fits better. I also prefer the first hook, but I am sure there is a better way to word it.

Created by Heeps of Wiki (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Powell Marsh Wildlife Area, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Full review to follow, but I'm not really a fan of either hook. The second just isn't intriguing in a "hooky" way, while the first hook seems a bit technical; in particular, it mentions "flocs", which is a term readers may not know. Perhaps different hooks can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

I agree that the second hook is not the best, perhaps the third one is a bit better? I think it's a bit less technical and gets the point across in a hookier way. Thank you for your time. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT2 is okay, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned in the article? The water becoming polluted that is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Heeps of Wiki: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the late response, I didn't get a ping for this page for some reason. In the referenced article, there is this quote: Lake proponents say the water pressure in the manufactured wetland forces groundwater, rich in iron, into Dead Pike Lake. Rip out the infrastructure, return the marsh to its natural form, and Dead Pike Lake will be saved, they say. “This lake represents an opportunity for people to get a sense of what a pristine northern Wisconsin lake still can look like. But they’re polluting it,” said Wolf. “Our own Department of Natural Resources has contributed significantly to environmental damage and to the loss of property rights for the citizenry that’s here.” Heeps of Wiki (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, but the article doesn't seem to have been edited in a while and my original concern remains unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article hasn't been updated in a while because I am not sure what to fix. I misconstrued your earlier comment which asked where the statement was in the article, I assumed you meant in the reference. But either way, in the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area article, there is prose in the Dead Pike Lake section that I feel adequately mentions the polluting of the water, and the source of said pollution. If this does not assuage your concerns, let me know how I can best rectify the problem. I would also love to hear some other feedback for the article. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North Carolina Council of State

(

)

... ~~that the North Carolina Council of State is the collective body of 10 elective offices of the executive branch of the government of North Carolina including the Governor?~~ Source: In the article
- ALT1: ... that the North Carolina Council of State is a holdover from the 1700s Province of North Carolina and includes 10 elective offices including the Governor? Source: North Carolina's "first constitution, ratified in December (1776), provided for a Council of State" [12] North Carolina Manual 2011, pp. 137–138
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard Rwehururu

Improved to Good Article status by Indy beetle (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/North Carolina Council of State, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Began reviewing for DYK

good article on January 31, 2023, 8179 characters (1289 words) "readable prose size", 29 references cited inline, Earwig stated that copyvios were unlikely; primarily multi-word phrases which aren't a problem. Hook is NOT interesting, which is a primary requirement for DYK. Added alt1 hook; asked nominator to approve or supply their own.

QPQ was Bernard Rwehururu.

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

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

Hook eligibility:

Cited: Y
Interesting: N - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgreason (talk • contribs

) 16:41, 2023 February 14 (UTC) Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 21:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding query tag as ALT1 needs to be independently approved. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Actually, this needs a new reviewer to approve ALT1. I have adjusted the DYK checklist to reflect the fact that the original hook was not considered to be interesting, and changed the status therein accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I don't think "holdover" is really a great way to describe the Council of State as it relates to history. Sure, the body originated in colonial governance (as did the office of governor and the office of secretary of state) but to call it a mere holdover I think dismisses it in a way I don't think accurately reflects what the sources say about this body. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATL2 ... that Elaine Marshall is the first woman elected to the North Carolina Council of State in its 246-year existence? source — Maile (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Crew Motorfest

(

)

... that The Crew Motorfest takes place in Oʻahu, the same place as the first two Test Drive Unlimited games which were previously worked on by the some of the same developers? Source: [13] and [14]
- Reviewed:
- Comment: If someone has any idea to word the hook better then feel free to tell me. Also, I'm including DecafPotato as an additional author since they helped me write a decent amount of this article.

Created by Blaze Wolf (talk) and DecafPotato (talk). Nominated by Blaze Wolf (talk) at 15:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Crew Motorfest, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Newly created article about a video game. The article is long enough and sourced throughout. ALT0 is a bit confusing but makes sense when reading the article. It would have to be reworded to indicate what Ivory Tower is. I guess, instead of which were previously worked on by the director of Ivory Tower?, say which were previously worked on by the some of the same developers? QPQ is not needed as Blaze Wolf and DecafPotato have three DYK credits combined between them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
@Muboshgu: I like that. Sounds much better to me. Feel free to use that. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We aren't allowed to request DYK dates based on commercial releases, but in the case of this "upcoming" video game, it would be helpful to know when the game will finally be published, because at the moment this article is mainly written in future tense and relies too heavily on the vendor as a source, making it arguably too WP:PROMOTIONAL. Once the game is released, there will be reviews and more independent secondary sources we will be able to cite in the article. In any case I'm uncomfortable with this article going to the main page as is, but perhaps this can all be rectified in the near future. Cc: @Blaze Wolf, DecafPotato, and Muboshgu: Do we know? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Articles created/expanded on February 3

No More the Fool

(

)

... that Elkie Brooks's hit "No More the Fool" was originally written for Kim Wilde?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Satoko Kishimoto
- Comment: The article should be long enough already (roughly 1,500–1,550 characters), but I will expand it a bit more tomorrow.

Created by Moscow Connection (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/No More the Fool; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Not really a big fan of the hook since it is reliant on names that not be familiar to all readers (for what it's worth, I do know who Wilde is thanks to Kids in America, but I can't assure that most readers are familiar with her). Can a different angle be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
- I will expand the article tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and will try to find another interesting fact about the song to use for the DYK. The problem is that I could find only one book that I could use. And there isn't much in it that I haven't already put into the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moscow Connection: Okay. Just note here on the nomination page once those have been accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moscow Connection: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Tomorrow, I promise. Sorry for the delay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Narutolovehinata5: Could you maybe propose something else as a hook?
  I think that he current hook is interesting. And I can't think of anything better.
  Btw, I've been trying to find more sources to use, but I can't find anything. And I couldn't find a single source that would say what the song was about. I even tried searching for a source saying this song was a ballad (it is ballad, isn't it?), and nothing.
  I can ask for help at the music project talk page, maybe they will be able to find something. And to come up with a better hook.--Moscow Connection (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to be frank here: with the current content, I don't think the article is a right fit for DYK. There's not much in the article that seems to be intriguing to a non-specialist audience, especially if readers don't know who either name is (I personally only recognize Wilde). Looking at the article again, I think the only possible option that could still be used might revolve around this particular part: "I’ve been writing this song for Kim Wilde," said Ballard and showed them "No More the Fool". Brook's husband and Mike Heap were instantly "blown away". "That’s it!," said Jordan when Ballard stopped singing. "But I’ve written this for Kim Wilde," said Ballard protestingly. "No you haven’t. You’ve written it for Elkie Brooks," replied Jordan. Basically, a rewording of the original hook, but with more emphasis on the quote and Ballard's protest. But otherwise, I'm also out of ideas. In any case, the article does meet the technical DYK requirements including a lack of paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been done. I'll assume good faith on the sourcing as I can't access the sources. The article is technically eligible for DYK, but its lack of a suitable hook (proposed or possible) is the sticking point here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Yes, some pages are omitted from the Google Books preview. But you can try googling „"Finding My Voice: My Autobiography" site:idoc.pub“. And maybe, just maybe, you'll find something. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll just ask for help at the music project. The song is very famous and it's a pity I wasn't able to find more information about it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked for help here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Any help appreciated at Template:Did you know nominations/No More the Fool. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT1 ... that Russ Ballard didn't want to give the song "No More the Fool" to Elkie Brooks, because he wrote it for Kim Wilde? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's getting warmer, but I think the "protested" wording like in the quote would make it more intriguing regardless of reader familiarity with the names involved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mosaic of Rehob

(

)

... that people returning from the Babylonian captivity to the Holy Land and to their places of settlement in the Holy Land at that time left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices? Source: Mishnah (Tractate Shebiith 6:1 )
- Reviewed:

Created by Davidbena (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mosaic of Rehob, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook eligibility:

Cited: Y
Interesting: N - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@Davidbena: Welcome to DYK! Now, when I say the hook isn't interesting, i mean that the hook is confusing. I'm not understanding what the hook is supposed to say and I think that's because the hook doesn't have any links to other wikipedia articles in it. Also Mosaic of Rehob Isn't linked in the hook either so i'm not sure what the mosaic is. Also, i'm not sure what citation that's supposed to be as i'm not used to the citation style of the article. Also, I'm stumped specfically on "left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?" because i don't know what you mean by "indelible mark", what "Jewish nation", and what "certain religious practices". Also the hook is too long, it's at 220 characters when it should be less than 200. I know I said a lot but hopefully it doesn't scare you. I saw this "The mosaic contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text" in the lead that could work as two possible hooks if this doesn't work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

So, should I go ahead and re-submit a nomination for this page "Mosaic of Rehob" at DYK, using your suggested hook? I'm willing to do so. I'll also link the name "Mosaic of Rehob". If you give me the go-ahead, I will re-submit it, with the hook reading this time as follows:

"Did you know that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?" Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: I might have confused you but that's not what I'm asking. I'm mainly asking you to make your hooks more specific and do add some links to other wikipedia pages not to do a whole other nomination. Like for example, something like this.

"... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?"

Though if we are going to work with this hook, there are two minor problems I kind of have with it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, that's also fine. Can I empower you to help me with this? Your suggestions are good, and since I have never done this before, you seem to be better fit to fix all the small problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidbena: Here's my two problems.

It says "in any mosaic in the region" but what region? I can't tell if you mean the palestine region, the holy land, or some other region I don't know about.
The hook needs to be stated in the article, not just the lead, with an inline citation. I might be dumb but I can't see these mentioned in the article at all other than the lead.

These are generally pretty easy to fix and answer so I hope to see them done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The obvious answer to that is "... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any Hebrew mosaic in Palestine." I will make the correction now in the main article, and I'll find a way to incorporate the text, besides in the lead, also somewhere else.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke:, At your directives, I have just now amended the text to read "...in Palestine," instead of "in the region," and I have also repeated the claim that it is the largest Hebrew mosaic found in Israel, with a source, in the section entitled "Description of mosaic".Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright that's pretty much it. Now, since the hook we worked on was technically my hook, I'm going have to give this review to someone else since i'm not allowed to review my own hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

That should be fine. Good luck!Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke:, Wikipedia allows only seven days to submit a nomination for DYK after an article has reached "Good Article" status. Should I re-submit the nomination before this time-frame has expired?Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've already submitted the nomination you don't need to submit it again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article looks good, long enough and well cited. The hook is interesting enough, but I feel like it being the oldest known Talmudic text is more hook-y. "The oldest X" is just slightly more interesting than "the longest text on a type of art from a specific place", and the Talmud is reasonably well known. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Davidbena and Onegreatjoke: BuySomeApples (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 4

Sara Gadalla Gubara

(

)

... that despite her physical disability, Sara Gadalla Gubara came third in a 50 km mixed-sex national swimming event in 1972? Source: newspaper shout
UNCIF
- Reviewed:

Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gadallah Gubara, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

I'll review this one! Taung Tan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

QPQ: N - not needed
Overall:

As clever as this hook is, I'm afraid that the source of the hook https://www.assayha.net/ is reliable or not. I'm not sure if https://www.unicef.org/ can be used as a source at the DYK. Please explain the source's reliability. Taung Tan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Taung Tan newspaper shout is a respected Sudanese newspaper although it is diffcult to prove this. There are some news excerpts from around that time but it is in arabic so I am not sure who much I am stretching your kidness, and a picture for the winners (she is next to the guy in the front with glasses . There are other sources including France24 eluded to that + The UNICEF also talk about the race + Sudan Jorunal but not in details, there is a detailed account at Alarabya, a online blog written by a Sudanese historian, Sara's TEDxTalk and nationl TV interview which includes some images. I hope on of these stick.

It qualified for approval after I reviewed the sources. So it's good to go. Taung Tan (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
Taung Tan, in which case you may wish to change "cited" to yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Taung Tan: I should let y'all know that in general, it's best to leave initial reviews as-is, so that promoters know what went down at a glance when trying to close up a nom. Many thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FuzzyMagma and Taung Tan, earwig picked up a sentence in the article that appears to be virtually the same as one in the cited source. the source is dated 2010, while the wikipedia article was recently created.

article:		Her documentary film The Lover of Light (2004) is both a metaphor for Gadalla Gubara and for his interest in bringing social issues to light through filmmaking.
source:		Sara's film The Lover of Light (2004) is both a metaphor of Gadalla Gubara and of his interest in bringing social issues to light through filmmaking.

also, although there aren't many english sources, i picked one of them at random, and it doesn't seem to support the text for which it is cited. the source is used following a paragraph covering gadalla gubara's tertiary education, but the source doesn't seem to mention her tertiary education at all. i admittedly stopped checking sources after that. dying (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dying:, the sentence was taken from Cinema of Sudan (before ref 23). I have now rephrased it. Reference 19, was also copied over from the lede of Gadalla Gubara, ref. 2 (also indicated in the edit). I should have checked, and sorry for not doing that. I have now moved to where it belongs, near ref (26). It is now being replaced by Ref. 10, 6, and 19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyMagma (talk • contribs)

FuzzyMagma, that is good to know. thank you for clearing that up. (by the way, the title of the documentary should have remained in italics when you were rephrasing the sentence mentioned above, as placing the title in italics is not a personal decision, but a general english standard. more details regarding how wikipedia treats titles of works can be found at mos:title.

Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unfortunately, i am now also worried about the quality of the sources provided. i decided to take a look at the arabic sources, and the first one i looked at, the sudaneseonline source, appears to be a message board, which is not a reliable source. depends on who wrote it? not all sources are BBC and NYT. I mentioned above who wrote it and why I think it can be seen as reliable. anyway can be removed if contested further FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

admittedly, i stopped looking at arabic sources after that. i also noticed that the article was originally translated from ar wikipedia. as i am not fluent in arabic, i cannot competently check for copyright violations or instances of close paraphrasing with regard to the arabic sources, which may have existed in the ar wikipedia article before you translated it. I am not sure casting doubts without an evidence is a good thing as it can be easily interrupted as assuming bad faith. Please either give evidence to your claims or refrain from being too hypothetical FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

due to these issues, i do not feel comfortable promoting this hook at this time. your opinion is noted, and again can be easily amended - at least the point were you provided a ground for doubts. anyhow there is already an endorsement and a DYK check above FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anyone else is free to promote this hook if they are confident enough in the quality of the hook and the article, you did not mention anything about the hook itself in your argument, so I am not sure why now you are mentioning the quality of the hook FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or request a more in-depth review if they believe it is warranted. i do want to see this article promoted, as i had initially looked over this nomination intending to promote it, but i don't think i am competent enough to give this nomination a proper review. dying (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dying: in-line response FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs further review by new reviewer per discussion aboe. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

TVBoy

(

)

TVBoy mural of footballer Alexia Putellas

... that street artist TVBoy, known for his murals of footballers in Barcelona (example pictured), was asked to paint uplifting art in regions of Kyiv ahead of the one-year anniversary of the 2022 Russian invasion?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Norma Shearer filmography
- Comment: Various sources in article, most in Catalan. I welcome other hook suggestions! The only image currently on Commons of either topic mentioned in the hook is the Putellas one - it does show a little bit of a Ukraine one next to it; that might be appropriate so I've included it in the nom. It might also be a nice image to feature on MP during March, as Women's History Month.

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 14:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/TVBoy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Hi Kingsif (talk), review follows: article created 4 February and exceeds minimum length; article is well written; I tagged one exhibition for citation; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing of the sources, though many are in languages I cannot read (and haven't checked); cold you confirm which part of the cited article supports the "uplifting" (as per hook) or "art to bring positivity" (as per article), it wasn't obvious to me from the Google translation, the rest of the hook checks out. Image is good and looks to be OK in Spain as per Commons:Freedom of panorama (though I am not an expert). A QPQ has been carried out - Dumelow (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]

@Dumelow: I'm still busy, remind me to get to this if I leave it too long, hopefully I won't. Kingsif (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kingsif, just a gentle reminder as it's been a week. No rush if you're still busy though, happy to wait a bit - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I should be either less busy or more busy soon, I can probably go through this tonight. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff Wrana

(

)

... that in 2018, Jeff Wrana co-discovered a new type of cell in the intestinal lining? Source: Dr. Jeff Wrana and team follow a gut feeling and discover a new type of stem cell
- ALT1: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is likely to remain breast-cancer free? Source: Researchers develop promising technology for breast cancer
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jett Howard

Created by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jeff Wrana, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

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

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

Hook eligibility:

Cited: Y
Interesting: Y
Other problems: N - I think ALT1 might be partially incorrect; I'll explain why further down below.

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Really interesting submission! Almost everything looks alright, from the article's length and age, to the sources you used, to the QPQ requirement. ALT1 definitely looks like the "hookiest" hook, if it makes sense, but I fear there's a problem with it: the second half contains an an unclear statement... See, saying "breast-cancer free" might lead some people (including myself) to think that Wrana and Taylor's tool could help predict if a woman can completely avoid contracting the disease. Unfortunately, that's not exactly what's reported in the source you linked, which states: "Canadian researchers have developed a technology that analyzes breast cancer tumours in a new way, allowing them to predict with more than 80 per cent accuracy a patient's chance of recovering. The goal of the computerized tool is to eventually help doctors better target treatment to an individual patient, based on their tumour's profile." So, I think that technique is mainly about cancer treatment and survival, rather than cancer immunity... If confirmed, both the hook and the quote from the article should get edited accordingly: however, let me know if I missed something important! Oltrepier (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: More specifically, I would suggest these kinds of hook:

ALT1b: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to survive breast cancer?

ALT1c: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer?

By the way, cancer biology is one of the subjects I'm currently studying at uni, so I'm not just doing a review, but you're also allowing me to have a review... : D Oltrepier (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: how's this going? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron:. I am so sorry, I am just seeing this review for the first time. My fault for not checking it. I am completely fine with any of Oltrepier's proposed hooks. Let me tweak the sentence in the article. Also, Oltrepier, that is so cool that you're studying cancer biology. I am in absolutely no way studying anything STEM related in uni right now so I was relying heavily on my own translations/understandings. Thank you for clarifying my error. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: No worries at all! And that's fine: I'm not mother-tongue in English, either, so I definitely understand there can be some issues with the translation and the interpretation of documents... But anyway, this is not a big deal. : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron: is this g2g? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Yes, absolutely! I just can't promote my own hooks by myself... : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewer needed to check ALT1b and ALT1c to see whether they can be approved. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
]
- @
  It looks like ALT1b and ALT1c make claims that require secondary sourcing in line with WP:MEDRS – I don't think that The Toronto Star is gonna cover it, but we're looking :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
- @Oltrepier: As a reminder, ALT0 doesn't carry any MEDRS implications, if you'd like to approve it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I do think that ALT0 still is a biomedical statement. More generally, popular media or PR pieces from the researcher's institution (such as this one aren't really that reliable for priority-type statements about being the first to discover something. I'd like to see a citation from a medical source; it doesn't have to be peer reviewed but should be from a technical medicine-oriented publication or organization, more like this one. Or you can stick to a general statement about what kind of research he does. Also, male breast cancer is a thing, so the hooks should be rewritten to be gender-neutral. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    ]
    - i'd personally say it's bio, not biomed, but i think you're right otherwise – i'd also want to see some kind of medrs-reliable secondary source that confirms. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron and John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): You're right, I should have addressed the need for more adequate sources, too... Luckily, though, I think I've found the original paper by Wrana and the rest of his team: here's the PubMed address, while this is the DOI link (which, unfortunately, is behind pay-wall). The journal that published the paper, Nature Biotechnology, is cited as a source both by the original Toronto Star link and a CBC article I've found by myself, and the respective dates match with one another, as well.

I also wanted to clarify that, as reported by both the aforementioned articles, the study only involved female patients. For example, the CBC wrote that "In this week's online issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology, Wrana and his colleagues say the system enables them to accurately predict in 82 per cent of more than 350 women studied whether the breast cancer would be fatal." I hope this will help solve the sourcing problem, but let me know if I missed anything else! Oltrepier (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS, primary sources generally shouldn't be used for medical content – we'll need some kind of secondary MEDRS-compliant source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Do citations in other papers count towards the criteria? I was thinking about looking for those here. Oltrepier (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 5

Farzi

(

)

... that the 2023 series Farzi was first conceived as a film in 2014? Source: Shahid Kapoor, Raj & DK Talk Prime Video Crime Thriller ‘Farzi’ and Shahid Kapoor, Nawazuddin Siddiqui to star in Farzi
- Reviewed:

5x expanded by Krimuk2.0 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Farzi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Length, history and reference accepted. Good to go ... but for copyvio detector finding great similarity with this page. It looks to me like our article came first, but I'd like to clear that up. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hook is good with reference and all, but the issue remains with copyvio with the article and the gamingwap.com website. After that is resolved, I feel with that this article is good to go for DYK. Toadboy123 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Sorry but gamingwap.com are the ones who blatantly plagiarised what I wrote first on Wiki. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging Daniel Case and Toadboy123, in case they hadn't seen the above response. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering the above response and the fact that the website plagiarized from Wikipedia article, I would say the article would be good to go for DYK. Toadboy123 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does seem that our article's text precedes by a month the earliest archived version of the gamingwap page (about March 1 on the Wayback Machine). So, on good faith, I'll say we can go ahead. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Articles created/expanded on February 7

2023 South Ethiopia Region referendum

(

)

... that the government of Ethiopia's SNNP region supported local governments calling for a referendum to secede from the region? Source: [15][16]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/First Republic of Armenia

Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 07:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 South Ethiopia Region referendum; 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
New Enough: Y Long Enough: Y

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: Y
Neutral: Y
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y
Other problems: Y

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Is it really a good idea to run a hook for this article before we have the election results, especially as it will likely be running a few days after we get the results (and therefore rather significantly changed from the nominated version)? Not totally opposed to this; I don't think it is explicitly banned to do something like this, but I'm not sure it's really a good idea either. There aren't any other problems here, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

An interesting question. We don't run political hooks before elections or similar, but the actual voting has passed. (Another issue perhaps is that if I had waited for the results it would be past the seven day mark, but that's DYK so here we are.) Hopefully timely results emerge on the predicted date and the article will be updated then. CMD (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the point that Elli raises – and I must say, I agree – is not one about promotionality, it's one about article integrity. Once the results are released and analyzed, the article is likely to need or poorly undergo a large spate of of editing, and it'll need a re-review then. Let's hold off on approval until the results are tallied. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article has been updated by HapHaxion. CMD (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging Elli and theleekycauldron to see whether their concerns have been addressed by the updates. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gonna defer to Elli on that one, I think :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 9

Mark Hunter (photographer)

(

)

Mark Hunter In 2007

... that Mark Hunter, known as The Cobrasnake, started “one of the earliest and most impactful social photography sites” according to Vogue? Source: “ Hunter’s blog, which was one of the earliest and most impactful social photography sites of its kind, offered anyone with an internet connection unprecedented access into the blossoming hipster subculture: an intoxicating–and intoxicate” Vogue
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bondiola sandwich

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 04:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mark Hunter (photographer); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Would it be possible for someone crop the image I included in the nomination? I think it’s great, but wouldn’t stand out on the front page as it is. Thriley (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will review shortly. In the meantime @Thriley suggest trying CropTool to crop. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New (moved from draftspace Feb 9) and long enough. Mostly well written and sourced; some notes are below. Unable to load Earwig, but don't expect any issues there. QPQ present.
Here are a few suggestions: The lede could use another sentence explaining what Hunter is known for, and move the birth date to just after "Mark Hunter". Add birth date and age to infobox. Fill in some bare link citations. Uncurl
quotation marks. The sentence "It allowed anyone on the internet to have access" is hyperbolic; maybe put this in Vogue's voice (as in "Vogue argues that it allowed anyone on the internet to view ..." or similar). Some lingering q's: What did Hunter change the name of his website to? Relevance of the Kennedy paragraph? Why put one sentence about Hunter's book under its own heading?
Not sure about the photo ... I see that it was uplo

[1] referenced

[1]