Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye's Back (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 25 November 2023 (→‎Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

september 1983 laws

i am sorry to mention this, but unfortunately, it looks like the initial version of this article was largely copied from the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article (specifically, this version), and the nominated article is currently not long enough to satisfy the eligibility criteria mentioned at wp:dyksplit. a comparison via earwig of the aforementioned article versions can be found here. neither the edit summaries nor the talk pages appear to mention the split, so i can understand why this issue may have been missed before.

to be clear, i don't know if there is a copyright, close paraphrasing, or attribution issue here. it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator or was already in the public domain to begin with; i simply haven't had the time to check. i am only raising this as a wp:dyksplit issue. i remember there was another dyk hook that was mistakenly accepted and ran on the main page last month, even though it did not satisfy wp:dyksplit, so i just wanted to raise this issue before the hook was scheduled to appear on the main page. apologies if i am missing something obvious. dying (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well dang. "it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator" the copied text seems to come from the nominator's 30 August 2023 rewrite of National Reconciliation (Sudan). Rjjiii (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
good catch, dying! have pulled :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron given how this conversation went (see dying response and mine below), are you going to put it back? FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying to add to the previous point "it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator". The text you mentioned was moved not copied and expanded way beyond what beyond the version that you used in earwig. How about you do the earwig analysis with the current version of September 1983 Laws and if you reach the same conclusion, I am happy for the hook to go FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw you can just click on both articles stats and see who is main contributor so you will to know if “that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator”. You did the crazy bit of comparing two old versions of two different articles why not do the easy bit too FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if it's established that September 1983 Laws is at least 80% new text, this nomination can go forward. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the rule even when I wrote both articles around similar time and decided the split when one ran too broad while nominating one and leaving the other; then I guess I will wait for the article to pass GA FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: if you split the text less than seven days after publishing to mainspace, it's still new if you nominate within seven days of putting it in mainspace? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the Nation Reconciliation article to the mainspace on 13 October and the September 1983 Laws article was created on 16 October. So yes less than 7 days FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, i completely missed that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace shortly before the article was split! thanks for pointing that out, FuzzyMagma. also, although the article was moved to mainspace just over a week before the nomination, i'm happy to let that slide.
interestingly, the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article wasn't actually the article i had first compared the nominated article with; i only ended up stumbling upon that after a bit of digging. i think what had first caught my eye was the similarity between the nominated article with the "Islamism in Sudan" article. the latter article was first created in mainspace in 2020. according to this earwig comparison, there seems to be more than a 20% overlap between these two articles. if the overlap with "Sudanese Greeks" (here) and "Legal system of Sudan" (here) are also taken into account, it seems as if expanding the nominated article to satisfy the fivefold expansion requirement at this point would be difficult to achieve.
apologies for the confusion caused by using the comparison with the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article. at the time, it looked like presenting that comparison would have made the issue more obvious. dying (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just for clarification, I was the one who expanded the Islamism in Sudan article from a stub to the existing size (by 90.2%) starting from 31 August 2023 and did not nominate the article as it relayed on one source and I need to improve so it can fit the front page. The text the might have started all of this, as you said, was copied later on 20 October from the September 1983 Laws and not the other way around. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry, FuzzyMagma, it looks like you misinterpreted what i was trying to say. the date that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace is irrelevant because the copied material previously appeared in the "Islamism in Sudan" article. if only the date that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace mattered, then editors can effectively renew text copied from other articles by first copying the text to an intermediary article in draftspace first.
i'm not sure why you provided the diff dated 2023.10.20. the only substantial text copied there appears to be an accidental duplication of some caption text into the prose, which you later removed anyway in this diff. i suppose you could say that the text was copied from the "September 1983 Laws" article to the "Islamism in Sudan" article, but that's simply because it was already in both articles before you duplicated it in the "Islamism in Sudan" article. in any case, the duplicated caption text wasn't what initially caught my eye anyway.
the comparison i provided in my last comment between the "September 1983 Laws" and "Islamism in Sudan" articles was based on the latest versions at the time because you had requested that i compare the then-current versions in your earlier comments. to make more clear what text was copied, here is a comparison between the current "September 1983 Laws" article and the "Islamism in Sudan" article at the time the "September 1983 Laws" article was created. this comparison clearly shows that more than 20% of the current text in the "September 1983 Laws" article had already appeared in mainspace before the article was created.
i think it is possible that you had actually copied the text in question from a different article, or even from an offline draft, but had lost track of what text you were copying to which articles, and didn't realize when you created the new "September 1983 Laws" article that you had already copied much of the text to the old "Islamism in Sudan" article more than a month earlier. if so, that would explain why you may not have realized that this article was ineligible when you nominated it. dying (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree with your statement. the comparison that you are showing is the current September 1983 Laws with a version of Islamism in Sudan, I know that from the similarity in the lead which I copied as I said on 20 of October. So you cannot hyperbolically make the jump that because some of text match now equals that they are the same.
i don’t think I misunderstood anything, you start your argument with comparisons from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) which I dismissed, shifted later to Islamism in Sudan stating that the article existed since 2020 which I again dismissed by I pointing out that actually I am the one who expanded the article starting 30 August 2023, and you now again shifted to compare recent versions of the articles.
anyway, the two versions that you compared were within almost the 7 days. Compare the current article with a version that was not copied from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) and was 7 days older and I would happily pull the plug on this
also please make sure that the new (non copied) prose is less than DYK length requirement FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma:
  • when you are referring to "the similarity in the lead which I copied as I said on 20 of October", are you just referring to the fact that, in the diff you provided, you copied the {{multiple image}} template from the "September 1983 Laws" article to the "Islamism in Sudan" article? i don't think that's relevant. i was comparing the prose, not the images nor the captions. i believe wp:dyksplit also only considers the text in the prose. in addition, the last earwig comparison i provided uses a version of the "Islamism in Sudan" article that predates the addition of the duplicated images. by the way, the duplicated images weren't what initially caught my eye either.
  • i didn't conclude that the articles are the same because some of the text matches. i said that "more than 20% of the current text in the 'September 1983 Laws' article had already appeared in mainspace before the article was created", and therefore concluded that "this article was ineligible when you nominated it". the articles are clearly different, but i believe they are not different enough for the "September 1983 Laws" article to be eligible for dyk. wp:dyksplit allows splits to be eligible for dyk "if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size", but this is not the case here.
  • i am not sure why you are stating that i should "[c]ompare the current article with a version that was not copied from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) and was 7 days older". i believe that is what i already did. the earwig comparison i had previously provided is a comparison between the "September 1983 Laws" article on 2023.11.08, and a version of the "Islamism in Sudan" article on 2023.10.01, nearly three weeks before you nominated the "September 1983 Laws" article at dyk.
    i can provide another one that shows that the duplicated text was in mainspace much earlier than that if you'd like. this earwig comparison clearly shows that more than 20% of the prose of the current "September 1983 Laws" article was already present in the mainspace "Islamism in Sudan" article on 2023.08.31, fifty days before the dyk nomination.
regardless, you don't seem to have noticed what i was trying to do with the last paragraph of my previous comment, so i will be more clear. i was trying to give you a decent out. being unfamiliar with wp:dyksplit, or unaware that this nomination violated that criterion, is an understandable error, so you won't suffer much reputational damage for withdrawing a nomination if that was the case.
you probably didn't realize this, but i had actually chosen to bring this up as a wp:dyksplit issue as a favor to you. there are a number of other issues with this nomination, and citing wp:dyksplit seemed the least accusatory of the options. did you want to take the out now? dying (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“trying to give you a decent out.”!!!
“reputational damage”!!!
” as a favor to you”!!!
bro, Are you ok?! I thought we normally need to assume good faith!
weird!
is that how you normally say “sorry”? Or “I was wrong” or “oops”!
I just debunked your half-baked detective work so just stick to the facts and do nothing for me please
no one asked you for favours 🤦‍♂️ FuzzyMagma (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alll righty, let's everyone take a step back. @FuzzyMagma: The crux of the matter seems to be that per this earwig report, more than 20% of the current version of September 1983 Laws had already existed, in mainspace, at Islamism in Sudan, for over two weeks. That means that September 1983 Laws is neither new nor a fivefold expansion. Unless you dispute that claim/I'm grossly misreading the diffs, I'm pulling this article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already beaten this claim to the ground earlier. Just recycling old arguments does not make it new. Above I clearly outlined that, see my comment that started with “No worries. Just for clarification, I was the one who expanded the …”
it was not fun to defend myself and work, like I copied someone else work when I was the one who wrote the three articles in question and picked one that I thought interesting for DYK
am I to be expected to argue with someone who shifted their argument three times? I did refuted their claim three times and then just decided this is not about the article this is someone who does not like to be wrong
I had the same encounter in Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gadallah Gubara with the same editor and yet kept my cool down and sliced through this one and the other one.
Typically when you understand that you made a bad call, you apologise or just quietly walk way. We all been there BUT doubling (tripling!) down when your argument doesn’t hold water and starting using some above language is just strange!
I leave it to you to decide. And just for the sake of closing this. Even if you remove the text with 20% similarity in the articles, you will still have an article that is more than the DYK required prose length, i.e., The problem has nothing to do with WP:DYKSPLIT which states that "Articles featured at DYK must exceed 1500 characters of prose. Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles.". Still I did some paraphrasing to just ease your mind, see here. Hope this resolve this situation FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: The relevant text from WP:DYKSPLIT is Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text. It doesn't matter that the text is originally yours, or even originally from this article – if that text appears in mainspace over two weeks, elsewhere, before this article does, the text in the article isn't new and the above part of DYKSPLIT applies. With that in mind, I'm going to pull. I suggest you stop levying personal attacks at dying – WP:ANI would be the place to go if you have a legitimate grievance with their behavior in this thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI will not help and would likely just increase bad blood. It only really helps if one party is clearly engaging in persistent misbehavior. Rjjiii (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a fair point – i didn't think FM should file a thread there, and I didn't when I said that, but if they have a user-conduct issue, it's better there than here. Ideally, the stick could just be dropped. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii Maybe you need to read this vomit Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws at the end FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma, you nominated an ineligible article for DYK. I would seriously recommend dropping that stick right about now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws? Have a look to the end of the “discussion” and if you think I am the one with a stick then I can gladly put it where it belongs FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And assume good faith even if you think it’s ineligible. Mistakes happens but slander is intentional FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the "September 1983 Laws" article has a number of instances of close paraphrasing. some passages are so similar to versions of the sources translated by google that it is difficult to describe the instances as paraphrasing. i do not believe these problems are limited to this article.

apologies in advance for the length of this comment. i have chosen to only show a few examples to illustrate the issues involved, but the problems appear to be extensive enough that it was difficult for me to keep this comment brief.

first off, if you are like me and prefer to author contributions from scratch rather than try to rework the text of a source, here is a reminder of what wikipedia considers unacceptable close paraphrasing. also, note that the quotes below from arabic sources have been taken from translations by google. links to these translations have also been provided.

september 1983 laws

article:     Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by al-Turabi and allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activities. The Brotherhood took advantage of the opportunity to order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and had massive marches in support of the move. It also provided political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organisations, and voluntary organisations, as well as its cadres of judges such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi.
source:     ... Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by ... al-Turabi [and] allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activity. The latter took advantage of the opportunity in order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and took out massive marches in support of the move. It also provided its political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organizations, and voluntary organizations, as well as its cadres of judges ... such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi.
article:     As many as 300 Sudanese endured the painful amputation of limbs. These punishments, administered by emergency courts, were inflicted on those found guilty of stealing property worth over $40. These amputees faced constant social stigma and accusations, making it increasingly challenging to secure employment. Their severed limbs were perceived as marks of criminality, leading to wrongful arrests and a life of taunts as they walked the streets. In many cases, these punishments shattered family lives, as returning home without a limb brought shame. ... However, they rallied together to form a self-help association, aiming to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. They ... faced opposition from the government, citing concerns that it might be used as a front for criminals and disrupt the Sudan's form of Islamic justice. [footnote marker removed]
source:     ... as many as 300 Sudanese who have lost one or more limbs .... Emergency courts routinely ordered amputations for people found guilty of stealing property worth $40 or more. For those who received such punishment, stares, accusations and harassment are constant. Employment is, for them, an ever-diminishing expectation. ... Their severed limbs represent badges of criminal guilt ..., making ... wrongful arrest common. They are taunted .... The punishments sometimes brought an end to family life; to go home without a limb would mean shame .... The amputees have formed a self-help association ... to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. ... Peter Anton von Arnim ... said the Government's arguments ... included accusations that it would be a front for criminals, and that would upset Moslems who favored the Sudan's form of Islamic justice.
article:     Also in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing broad constitutional draft amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic republic" (article 1 of the draft amendments), and for the president of the republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" (article 80 of the draft amendments), and for the sources of Sharia to be it is the law and custom that does not conflict with it (article 59 of the draft amendments). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation (article 65), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over aspects of public life.
source:     Then, in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing draft broad constitutional amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic Republic" ( Article 1 of the draft amendments ) and for the President of the Republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" ( Article 80 of the draft amendments ), and for the sources of Sharia to be It is the law and custom that does not conflict with it ( Article 59 of the draft amendments ). Then the 1998 Constitution came to glorify the religious foundation by introducing a text on "the nature of the state," which stipulated that governance in the state belongs to God, the Creator of human beings ( Article 4 ). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation ( Article 65 ), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over the aspects of public life.
  • source cited: https://archive.today/20231120070148/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4328194
    source examined: https://archive.today/20231120070156/https://www.ida2at.com/history-islamic-movement-sudan/ (google translation)
    this example is odd because, although the paragraph discusses mahmoud muhammad taha, his movement, and his execution, the cited source doesn't appear to cover the details of the paragraph that it supposedly supports. i did notice, however, that the paragraph is a close paraphrase of one in a different source.
    curiously, an earlier version of this paragraph is nearly identical to one in the "Islamism in Sudan" article, while the citation there correctly points to the source which it closely paraphrases. to attempt to satisfy the wp:dyksplit criterion, as explained here, the paragraph in the "September 1983 Laws" article was changed, largely in this edit, to reduce the amount of overlap between the "Islamism in Sudan" article and the "September 1983 Laws" article. the new paragraph, however, remains a close paraphrase.
    to make more clear how FuzzyMagma's recent edit of the paragraph resulted in less text being highlighted by earwig without actually resolving the close paraphrasing issue, i am also including below how the paragraph looked like before the edit, as seen in this version of the article.
article:     The Republican Brotherhood, established by Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, represented another Islamic movement in Sudan. This movement endorsed the idea of Islam having two messages and discarded various Islamic traditions. It promoted peaceful relations with Israel, gender equality, criticised Wahhabism, advocated for freedoms, opposed the enforcement of Islamic penal codes, and supported a federal social democratic governance system. Taha vehemently opposed the prohibition of the Sudanese Communist Party, denouncing it as an undermining of democracy, despite not being affiliated with communism. He was convicted of apostasy in 1968 and faced a similar sentence again in 1984.
earlier:     Another Islamic movement in Sudan was the Republican Brotherhood, founded by Mahmoud Muhammad Taha. This movement embraced the concept of Islam having two messages and abandoned numerous Islamic practices. It advocated for peaceful coexistence with Israel, gender equality, criticised Wahhabism, called for freedoms and refraining from implementing Islamic criminal punishments, and championed a federal social democratic government. Taha strongly opposed the ban on the Sudanese Communist Party and condemned the decision as a distortion of democracy, even though he was not a communist. He was sentenced to apostasy in 1968 and again in 1984.
source:     There was another movement of Islamic thought in Sudan, which was the "Republican Brotherhood" movement, which was founded by Mahmoud Muhammad Taha. This movement adopted the idea that Islam has two messages, so it abandoned many Islamic rituals. It also called for peaceful coexistence with Israel, and complete equality between... Both genders, criticized Wahhabism, called for respect for freedoms and non-implementation of Islamic criminal punishments (legal hudud), and called for a federal social democratic rule. He also strongly opposed the ban on the Sudanese Communist Party and considered the democracy that makes that decision a "monoty" of democracy, even though he was not Communist. A Sudanese court sentenced Mahmoud Muhammad Taha to apostasy in 1968. This was repeated in 1984 .... [footnote marker removed]

islamism in sudan

one of the ways that FuzzyMagma works can be seen in the history of the "History of the Islamic movement in Sudan" redirect, which now points to the "Islamism in Sudan" article. the first version of this page is essentially a translation of this cited source (google translation). note that google's translation of the title of the source is identical to the title of the page: "History of the Islamic movement in Sudan".

i do not know if FuzzyMagma was working off a version of the source translated by google, as i cannot tell if the text is a close paraphrase of google's translation, or simply a version of the source translated by another service. i picked a random paragraph to provide a comparison below.

draft:     Following the fall of Nimeiri's regime, al-Turabi and his associates established the "Islamic National Front." This newly formed group participated in the Constituent Assembly elections and secured the third position, amassing 54 seats. This achievement positioned them as the leading opposition force. Al-Turabi once again excelled in playing the role of a influential opposition party, effectively thwarting Sadiq al-Mahdi's endeavor—head of the government and the parliamentary majority—to suspend the contentious September laws and push forward peace negotiations with the southern region.
source:     After the overthrow of Numeiri's rule, Al-Turabi and his men founded the "National Islamic Front," which ran in the elections for the Constituent Assembly and won third place after the two historical parties, with 54 seats, which made it the leader of the opposition. Al-Turabi succeeded once again in acting as a pressing opposition party, disrupting the attempt of Sadiq al-Mahdi, the prime minister and majority leader in parliament, to suspend the controversial September laws and initiate peace negotiations with the south.

most of the subsequent edits of that page largely deal with adding links to the text. after that was done, FuzzyMagma copied that text to the "Islamism in Sudan" article, along with some additional text as well as code for a few images. (this earwig comparison makes it more clear that virtually all of the prose was copied verbatim.)

since then, the prose in the "Islamism in Sudan" article has barely changed. in fact, the paragraph i had picked randomly above can still be found here in the article, virtually intact. as FuzzyMagma as previously mentioned here that "I was the one who expanded the Islamism in Sudan article from a stub to the existing size (by 90.2%) starting from 31 August 2023", this means that a substantial portion of the current "Islamism in Sudan" article remains a closely paraphrased version of a single source.

wad el-mahi

these concerns do not appear to be limited to this dyk nomination and the "Islamism in Sudan" article. i also took a look at the "Wad el-Mahi" article, currently nominated at dyk. i picked an arabic source and an english source at random to spot-check.

article:     ... Major General Yassin Ibrahim Abdel Ghani, acting governor of Blue Nile State, announced that his government is making efforts to address the problems of providing water.... He allocated 8 billion Sudanese pounds, with support from UNICEF, to rehabilitate Wad el-Mahi's water station, which covers a number of residential cities in the East Bank.
source:     Major General Yassin Ibrahim Abdel Ghani, the acting governor of Blue Nile State, ... said ... that the state government is making ... efforts to address the problems ... of providing ... water .... He added that (8) billion pounds were provided ... with support from UNICEF to rehabilitate the Wad Al-Mahi water station, which covers a number of residential cities in the East Bank ....
article:     July's confrontations were partially triggered by these land conflicts
earlier:     The violence in July was partially triggered by these land conflicts
source:     The violence in July was partly triggered by conflicts of land ownership
——————————
article:     This resurgence of violence follows an earlier outbreak in mid-July, where intercommunal clashes claimed numerous lives and forced thousands to flee to safer areas.
source:     The intercommunal violence that erupted in mid-July ..., which left at least 105 people dead and caused thousands to flee to the ... safe parts of El Roseires, has flared up before. [link removed]
——————————
article:     ... individuals displaced and seeking refuge in ... schools and nearby camps. The closure of markets due to the ongoing violence has left local residents in dire straits while trying to meet basic needs, as government offices remain shuttered.
earlier:     ... individuals displaced and seeking refuge in ... schools and nearby camps. The closure of markets due to the ongoing violence has left local residents struggling to meet their basic needs, while government offices remain shuttered.
source:     ... people have been displaced and are taking refuge in schools and in a nearby camp .... Markets have closed due to the conflict so local residents are struggling to meet their basic daily needs. Government offices are also closed.

i figured that the above was enough to show that there were problems with the article, so i didn't really look into any of the other sources. i haven't checked to see if there were any issues with wp:dyksplit, so theoretically, this nomination could be saved by simply rewriting everything that is problematic. however, i don't know how much of the article is problematic.

kalakla

i wasn't sure if i just happened to pick three unfortunate examples of FuzzyMagma's articles, so i looked at a list of the articles FuzzyMagma created and picked a random recent one: "Kalakla". as before, i only needed to compare the article with one source before i found an instance of close paraphrasing.

article:     The history of Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kanna .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi also came to the region in the same era .... The two intermarried and the name Kalakla came to include all of them. The ancient Kalakla people migrated from Al-Manjara to the today's Kalakla, an area located south of Al-Hammadab and Al-Shajara. The Kalakla people worked in agriculture, and cutting trees and lumber.
source:     The history of Al-Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kannah .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi ... came in the same era to this spot ... and the two intermarried, so the name (Al-Kalakla) came to be included in them. The ancient Kalakla migrated from Al-Manjara to the land of gravel, which is the area south of Al-Hamdab and Al-Shajara .... The Kalakla worked in agriculture, cutting trees ....

again, to be clear, i don't know if this is the only instance of close paraphrasing in the article, as i only really looked at one source.

coda

i quickly skimmed through FuzzyMagma's contributions list to see if there were any deleted edits that were evidence of prior copyright violations. it did not take me long to find this series of deleted edits. (courtesy pinging Diannaa so that she is aware of the issues mentioned here.) i don't know how far back these issues go, as i stopped searching soon after finding that.

i remember raising the issues of copyright violation and close paraphrasing in FuzzyMagma's nomination of the "Sara Gadalla Gubara" article back when i was hoping to promote the hook there, and i am disappointed to learn that FuzzyMagma has yet to commit to avoiding such issues. it is a shame that the "September 1983 Laws" article is currently ineligible for dyk, as i had liked this hook too.

courtesy pinging the reviewer for the "September 1983 Laws" article again, as an issue separate from wp:dyksplit is being raised. also courtesy pinging the reviewer for the "Wad el-Mahi" article. dying (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify in this particular example? Is there currently a problem with the version of the Wad el-Mahi article, or are you concerned with older versions? As you correctly stated, I edited it to correct any problems based on Earwig. I haven't taken another look, but I'm assuming based on what you've said here (correct me if I'm wrong), that you aren't concerned about the current version of Wad el-Mahi, but earlier versions and the overall pattern of editing on other articles by the same editor. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, unfortunately, i do not believe that your edit resolved the close paraphrasing issue. i think it simply reduced the amount of text that was clearly copied directly from the source. had the text surrounding the passages highlighted by earwig also been free of any close paraphrasing, then what you did would have resolved the issue. wp:fixclosepara gives an example of how to address a close paraphrasing issue. to be clear, though, i think your rephrasing was an improvement.
i am concerned both about the current version of wad el-mahi and the overall pattern of editing. the close paraphrasing of the arabic source i spot-checked remains in the article. i don't know how much of the rest of the article consists of close paraphrasing. apologies for not having been more clear about this before.
earwig was designed to find text that was copied verbatim from sources. it is much more difficult to code an algorithm to catch instances of close paraphrasing. (this discussion covers earwig's limitations in a bit more detail.) in any case, i can understand why you missed the close paraphrasing of the arabic source, as we normally assume good faith with respect to sources that are not in english. dying (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I must disagree, as I explicitly reviewed the Erowid Earwig report, made the changes, and observed that the issue had been resolved. But you're saying the issue wasn't resolved? No, I don't see that. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am currently assuming that "Erowid" refers to earwig, but if you are using something i am not familiar with, then i admittedly have no expertise over the reports it provides.
i agree that the earwig report comes up relatively clean. however, i believe there is close paraphrasing present in the article. note that earwig does not detect close paraphrasing. (it also does not translate sources.) the instructions for reviewers include a warning about earwig, which is also reproduced in the edit notice for dyk nominations.

The Earwig tool can be helpful for detecting direct plagiarism, but it will not catch close paraphrasing and only checks certain types of sources; manual spot-checks should also be carried out.

are you saying that you do not believe there is any close paraphrasing in the "Wad el-Mahi" article? dying (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a typo. I've crossed it out. Please show me the close paraphrasing in "Wad el-Mahi". Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dang, again. @Viriditas and Dying: Regarding Wad el-Mahi, I don't see issues with the English-language source texts. With the Arabic source text, our article appears (I am relying on machine translation) to include direct translations of the source. Under US copyright law a translation is a derivative work that would require the permission of the copyright holder (unless the source is in the public domain) to upload and license to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Copyright violations oddly does not discuss translations, and I have seen at least one talk page argument about this before. Perhaps the policy needs to be explicit about this? Here are several places in addition to where dying highlighted in the Was el-Mahi article, that our article translates rather than summarizes the source text:

Article:     [...]the Governor of Blue Nile State Hassin Yasin Hamd announced the members of his new government and appointed Muhammad al-Mahi, commissioner of Wad el-Mahi locality.
Source:     The Governor of Blue Nile State announces the members of his new government [...] also appointed [...] Muhammad Al-Mahi, commissioner of Wad Al-Mahi locality.
Article:     Abdel Ghani initiated an electricity project in the Umm Darfa Al-Hilla area in the Wad el-Mahi locality. The Savings Bank for Social Development financed the electricity project at a cost of over 121 million Sudanese pounds, and its successful completion is expected to bring multiple benefits at local, state, and national levels.
Source:     Abdel-Ghani [...] inaugurated [...] the electricity project in the Umm Darfa Al-Hilla area in the Wadalmahi locality. [...] the Savings Bank for Social Development, as it is the financier of the 121 [...] and the project will have multiple benefits and gains at the local and state levels.
Article:     [...] the Anti-Narcotics Department in the Blue Nile Region successfully apprehended a criminal network involved in smuggling cash from Wad el-Mahi locality to the regional capital. Police Colonel Adam Gedo, Director of the Anti-Narcotics Department, received information about the network's activities.
Source:     The Anti-Narcotics Department in the Blue Nile Region succeeded in ensnaring a criminal network active in smuggling cash from Wad Al-Mahi locality to the capital of the region. Police Colonel Adam Gedo, Director of the Anti-Narcotics Department [...] had information [...] about a criminal network [...].

FuzzyMagma, I hate to be a downer here after you reached out, but I think any translated portions of the above articles need to be rephrased, to meet the Wikipedia's policy at WP:COPYOTHERS. And regarding September 1983 laws, I would say that the excerpts from alhurra.com and arab-reform.net also appear to be translations. If you raise September 1983 laws to a GA, I will happily re-review it for DYK; it still is an important topic that Wikipedia did not previously cover. And finally, sorry all for not catching this in my initial review, Rjjiii (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the name dying and stopped reading tbh. Do what you think need to be done FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britten's birthday, 22 November

Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his was written with the idea in mind to feature it on Benjamin Britten's birthday, 22 November, which is also the feast day of St. Cecilia, patron saint of music. Sorry, I had other things on my mind, but would like to return to the tradition. It would need a review, and a swap as the prep (2) is already full. Sorry about the inconvenience. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have several hooks now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's reviewed now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt and MyCatIsAChonk: Can the hook be changed to the suggestion below:
This ALT replaces "setting" with "using" as I was confused by the phrasing, and one of the sources states that the poem is "A Divine Rapture" (and I couldn't access the other source, so I think this is correct). Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for looking and your diligence! I usually prefer "set to music" over "use", but "to music" would be longer and repetitive, as "tenor voice" already hints at music. We could also get Britten to the front for active voice, and could say "composed" for more clarity earlier in the sentence. However, I like the intriguing title in the front. Just for the consideration of others:
ALT0c: ... that Benjamin Britten composed Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his for the tenor voice of Peter Pears, using poetry from A Divine Rapture by Francis Quarles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt and @Z1720, I personally prefer ALT0c, but b works too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved I'll approve ALTc for promotion. If one more editor approves this hook, an admin can add it to Queue 2. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also like ALTc, and give my approval. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I have promoted this to Queue 2. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the QPQ confirmation tool?

Looking for link to the tool you use to confirm if it's indeed one of the nominator's first five DYK nominations? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most reliable way is to go here and change the URL, to see someone's creations in template space. There's the "QPQ checker" tool in the DYK toolbox at every nompage, but it checks credits, not nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is the "QPQ checker tool in the DYK toolbox at every nompage"? I just know I used to be able to find it easily under "useful tools" but am having trouble locating it now. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah it is in the DYK toolbox. I see it now. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Is it me, or does the DYK Toolbox periodically disappear from every nompage? (Can't seem to find it anymore.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: it'll show up when you're viewing the nompage directly, but not through a transclusion :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening a DYK discussion

Hello! A little while ago, I nominated the article Isaac Saul for DYK, but it was rejected because it was embroiled in an AfD debate (and it was ultimately deleted for lack of high-quality sources). Since then, though, I have substantially expanded the number of sources, republished the article, and I believe it's ready. Do you know what I can do to get this nomination reopened? I can't just nominate it manually, because the page "Template: Did you know nominations/Isaac Saul" is already occupied with the discussion from the old nomination. Mover of molehillsmove me 16:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mover of molehills, you can't reopen the old nomination, but you can create a new nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac Saul 2. TSventon (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current version and the one that was deleted, they look almost identical. What has changed to make this person notable since then? RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now renominated at AfD. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: Boloco (nom)

This appears to fail "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change" as written. @PrimalMustelid @MaranoFan @Grk1011 RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find no hooks about wages, as there's great hook material there. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that it doesn't have a time period identified, so it is technically likely to change depending on when it's read? If so, how about: ...that by late 2023, there were only two locations left of Boloco, which once had 22 burrito restaurants throughout the northeastern United States?. Grk1011 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the problem. On the other hand, this doesn't seem very interesting. "Restaurant chain had a lot of locations in the past, but only two are left now" is true for lots and lots of restaurant chains. What makes that interesting? RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1: The Wai (nom)

@PrimalMustelid @Timothytyy @Graearms @Lightburst As noted in the original review, the "biggest" claim is a problem. The sources are almost certainly all rehashes of a press release, so I don't have much faith in them. And even if we do end up using that hook, it needs an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed citation.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

Noveloa

Pinging nominator @Fritzmann2002:, reviewer @SeoR:, promoter @PrimalMustelid:

The article and the source say that pollution, not litter, scatters this far-red light. When I read litter, I think of trash and candy wrappers, while pollution makes me think of chemical run-off or untreated sewage. Therefore, I would like to change "litter" in the hook to "pollution". Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, and I should perhaps have raised a similar question at the first review. I'd support the change, for clarity / absolute accuracy vs source. SeoR (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the above proposed change. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons in Chemistry (novel)

Pinging nominator @Justiyaya:, reviewer @Onegreatjoke:, promoter @PrimalMustelid:

  • ... that while writing Lessons in Chemistry, the author self-studied chemistry and was a full-time copywriter?

The source used for this hook says, "It was 2013 and she was a creative director at an advertising agency". I don't think creative director is the same as a copywriter. Can we change "copywriter" to "creative director"? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, the article says During the five years it took her to write the book, she kept her full-time copywriting job, and taught herself chemistry, even trying some experiments from a decades-old textbook, "The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments". which is what I was referencing. I believe she got inspired to write the book as a creative director, but I'm not really sure if that's the same job she held during the bulk of the writing. Justiyaya 04:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing the LA Times source because that is what is used in the article to verify the claim about her job. I have added refs to the paragraph to show where each of the information comes from to help readers verify the information. I think this has been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 refinement: Conversations about Important Things

I have a minor style refinement suggestion for Conversations about Important Things to check with you:

This is because the Important Conversions is a series of lessons rather than a one-off, and it's also an ongoing thing. --Minoa (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a rejected nomination

I always struggle to find the instructions for closing a rejected nomination (I wanted to close this one). Please remind me: where do those instructions live? Have others trouble with finding these, too? Is there a better place for storing those? Schwede66 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you should be able to use WP:PSHAW for that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Does it say that in the instructions somewhere? Having a look around, there isn't really a "logical home" for it. WP:DYKPBI might come closest. Schwede66 21:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As no-one responded or objected, I've added some instructions to Wikipedia:DYKPBI. Schwede66 21:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that reject was valid. The reviewer rejected because "the article had become a redirect", but it'd been moved and restructured, not converted to a redirect to a different pre-existing article. (This is a statement on "the rejection that was made", not about a rejection of that nomination in general.) Vaticidalprophet 21:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I had checked that it was indeed now redirecting and took the reviewer at their word. If it's been moved rather than redirected, that's of course a different story. I shall reopen this again. Schwede66 21:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh. I wouldn't have reopened it. But if you think there's a new hook, then sure. (My original message on this was a bit stricter -- if you think there's a new hook, of course feel free to reopen, but if you're just procedurally reopening, it's been sitting around for quite a while without progress.) Vaticidalprophet 21:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your initial message to me wasn't clear at all. I reopened this based on what I understood you told me. Schwede66 22:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

Modern Jewish historiography

Pinging nominator: @Onceinawhile:, co-creator @Andrevan:, reviewer @Launchballer:, promoter: @PrimalMustelid:

The article contains numerous instances where citations are needed. I have added cn tags to the article to indicate these locations. These will need to be resolved before the article can appear on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for reviewing. I've filled in the cites. Let me know if you see anything else. Andre🚐 02:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article and I think this issue has been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, you are a machine. Let me know what brand of coffee or tea you drink so I can stock up. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fast Forward by Counter Culture. Buy beans by the 5 lb bag. espresso machine, but any drip coffee or aeropress/french press or Chemex will do fine. If you have a Keurig, throw it out the window like that guy from that movie. I take with half and half and sometimes a pinch of cinnamon, but straight or water/ice will do. Andre🚐 09:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New in DYK

Hello. I'm new in DYK, and I would like to nominate the article Square pyramid that just changed its status. However, I would probably require guidance directly after I have read the instruction and some criteria, just in case to improve my comprehension of this interesting system in Wikipedia. I appreciate someone's explanation. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr Hi. I took a quick look at this does indeed appear to be eligible. As you've noticed, our instructions are unfortunately confusing, but the quick version is go to Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination, click the big blue "Create DYK nomination" button and fill out the resulting form. But before you do that, think about some intesting hooks you can suggest. A hook is a short teaser to get somebody interested enough to click on the article title and read it. I'm thinking something along the lines of "... that the Great Pyramid of Giza and Chlorine pentafluoride share a fundamental structural design? might work. I wouldn't sweat getting a perfect hook; part of the fun of DYK is people haggling over better ideas during the review process :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I'm also thinking about the other hook: "...that the square pyramid can be used to construct another new polyhedron?" but these hooks can be applied to any other pyramids article such as Pentagonal pyramid. But I guess I agree with your hook. Nevermind, will try to find another interesting hook. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deshong Art Museum hook typo? (nom)

"...that a teenage boy stole over $300,000 worth of paintings..." is in the nomination and is correct English. Somewhere along the way to Queue 2, an apostrophe-s after the money amount made it in, and it is not correct. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, and have removed the 's with this edit. If others object, this can be changed back without consulting me. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

Mona Williams (nom)

This article was previously at Mona Williams (Guyanese writer), which is a non-recommended disambig style for biographies with shared professions. This kind of article is exactly the kind that shows how it's a problem -- she was born in Guyana, but has lived in New Zealand for most of her life. I've moved it to Mona Williams (writer, born 1943), the usual disambig-with-shared-profession structure, but it needs to be updated in queue by an admin for WP:MPNOREDIRECT. (I was aiming to get it done before the queue move, but fell down the priority list.) Vaticidalprophet 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done by JPxG :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK suggestions

Hi. I just saw this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196 regarding my DYK suggestions. I would have replied there but I can't edit the page. I submitted both of these articles last year and were each approved on Nov. 1. I believe I submitted it within the 7-day limit. I only just saw the maintenance tags today but I have no problem making the necessary changes. I am confused what the specific issues are. For example, the intro for Mitsuharu Misawa is much longer than Max Thrasher and it's a GA-class article.

Also I've only suggested 4 articles I've written (and another written by someone else) since 2021, and only because the DYK main page specifically told me to. My only contributions to Wikipedia were to submit articles I wrote during COVID, and these two are my last ones. Is it really necessary for me to create an account if I'm no longer editing on Wikipedia? 173.162.220.17 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reply in archives, your replies will likely not be seen. It is not needed to create an account to edit Wikipedia, but to participate in a process like DYK where the tracking of contributions is part of the process, an account is helpful for allowing that. DYK also requires tracking and participating in discussions, which an account facilitates. Also note that there is a technical bar to IP participation in DYK in that it requires creating a nomination page, so when you do not create an account and instead nominate here, you are requesting that another volunteer takes the time to do a proper nomination on your behalf. I've removed the length tag, agreed on that point, but this is an example of why participation in discussion helps figure these questions out. CMD (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 2. We have a total of 275 nominations, of which 115 have been approved, a gap of 160 nominations that has increased by 4 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

Conversations about Important Things (nom)

The hook says "interrogation" but the article says "investigation"; those aren't the same thing. @PrimalMustelid @Minoa @Maury Markowitz RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept "police investigation". The DW source says that there was at least one case where the police got involved. --Minoa (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palembang City Regional House of Representatives (nom)

The word "grandest" is in the hook but doesn't appear anywhere in the article. @PrimalMustelid @Juxios @Nyanardsan RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Mataele (nom)

Technically, the hook verifies, but it's a mouthful. Hopefully somebody can come up with a less verbose alternative. @PrimalMustelid @BeanieFan11 @Dahn RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Stan Mataele was caught lying about his football experience to get on his college's team, but he made the squad anyway and was all-state?
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's better, I'll go one step more with:
  • ... that Stan Mataele was caught lying about his football experience but made his college team anyway and was all-state?
RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad we can't just shorten it to:
Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went with my own suggestion :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5x

If on the day of a recent death the article starts at 600 characters and I start editing when it gets to 1000 characters, do I have to expand 5x from 600 or 1000?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

600. It's x5 in the last seven days, so you could in theory nominate an article you've never edited.--Launchballer 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

Luca Salsi

@Gerda Arendt, Launchballer, and PrimalMustelid: There is a paragraph that was not cited in the article; I added a cn tag to indicate the paragraph.

Also, the article does not say that Salsi received the monikor of "baritone superman" because of his performance in Ernani, which the hook above specifies. I was not able to verify this in the two English sources used for this fact: is this verified in one of the non-English sources? If so, can this be clarified in the article? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Z1720. I translated from the German Wikipedia, and didn't study the sources as thoroughly as you did, and as I should have. I'll dig in more, but a quick reply:
I corrected that the Met performance was a concert (as the German said). Salzburg yes, but not at the Met, where Domingo, with his cold, stood on the side and instructed him how to play the next scene.
I dropped the sentence about the Superman. Possibly that was in the header of La Stampa in the printed version, but in the online version the header speaks about the seven hours (and I just took it as it came from the German Wikipedia, happy to find refs for a change). Hook possibility to play with (probably too long, I dropped the composer of Lucia to shorten, but Ernani will be too little known to do that):
I'll look for sources for the paragraph, and drop what I can't reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the paragraph. It mentioned 5 roles, the first claiming to be his first Verdi role. I found no source to say that specifically, but it's simply the first mentioned in the article, as the observant reader will perhaps gather without being pointed at it. I found an independent source for that one and two others, with dates (even full cast if more is wanted). The two remaining roles appear later in the article, so I just dropped them at that point --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akazehe

@Zanahary, Generalissima, and Vaticidalprophet: The "Lyrical content" section does not use inline citations, the first paragraph makes statements that need verification, and the 10-tiered hierarchy references Isaac Ndimurwakno, who is not used as an inline citation. These will need to be rectified before the article can appear on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Wasn’t sure (and still am not sure, so please take a look) how to place citations for extracted content like lists and translations. The Ndimurwakno attribution comes from the Facci source, now cited inline again. Zanahary (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Six Monkey

I posted about the hook on the Errors page, but no one seems to have noticed there...

Kymothoë (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

Penitential of Finnian

@PrimalMustelid, Kingoflettuce, and Juxlos: This is another one of those first/biggest/whateverist hooks. The hook states "is the oldest known" but the article only goes as far as "is believed to be the earliest known". RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are unambiguous about its being the oldest, while others say it "arguably" or "probably" is the oldest of the bunch. This isn't exactly a controversial topic so I didn't think it would be very necessary to further qualify the hook. But since you've brought it up, I don't see a problem with tweaking the hook to match exactly what the article states. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad

I can't find where in the article is says anything about the railroad being stolen. RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaterialWorks @Pi.1415926535 @Johnson524 RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's a paraphrasing of the first paragraph of the § Expansion section. — mw (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct: ... the D&C officers decided to take back their railroad. In the early morning hours of March 22, the president and secretary led a "dramatic midnight train run" beginning at Pine Plains. They tore up tracks at the engine house, woke up a conductor to operate a train, and took possession of the stations along the line. The cited sources describe it using "captured", "occupied", "seizure", and "took possession", so I think "stole" is a reasonable wording for the DYK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good enough for me, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly makes sense, I see the concern but I think people will get that "stole" is a little more complex than put in their pocket given that its a railroad and not a diamond. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1186859166"