Template talk:Did you know

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

There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

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

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
December 1 1 1
December 11 1
December 18 1
December 24 1 1
December 25 2
December 26 2 1
December 27 1 1
December 29 2
December 30 1
December 31 3 2
January 1 2 1
January 2 2 1
January 3 1 1
January 6 1
January 7 2
January 8 1 1
January 9 2 1
January 10 2
January 11 2 1
January 12 4
January 13 4 2
January 14 3 1
January 15 3 1
January 16 1 1
January 17 1 1
January 18 1 1
January 19 3 3
January 20 3 1
January 21 2 1
January 22 3 1
January 23 6 3
January 24 2
January 25 5 3
January 26 8 3
January 27 7 3
January 28 4 1
January 29 5 2
January 30 3 3
January 31 7 4
February 1 5 4
February 2 5 3
February 3 9 3
February 4 4 2
February 5 12 7
February 6 11 3
February 7 9 5
February 8 7 2
February 9 11 2
February 10 10 8
February 11 9 4
February 12 12 4
February 13 7 3
February 14 10 2
February 15 3 1
February 16 2
February 17 9 1
February 18 6 2
February 19 3 1
February 20 6 2
Total 255 106
Last updated 23:27, 20 February 2024 UTC
Current time is 23:27, 20 February 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Click here to nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced procedures[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Handy copy sources:

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

  • 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]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 11[edit]

Ingush towers

Pyaling tower complex in Ingushetia
Pyaling tower complex in Ingushetia
  • ... that Ingushetia is often called “the country of towers" after the Ingush towers, unique medieval monuments found throughout the region? Source: In the Middle Ages, a period of revival of the tower culture of the North Caucasus began, the phenomenon of which, according to researchers, mostly manifested in the mountains of Ingushetia, which was labeled by many as “the country of towers", to the extent that in 2022 the region's tourism committee announced that the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Russia) patented the slogan "Ingushetia — Country of Towers". link: https://gazetaingush.ru/news/komitet-po-turizmu-regiona-poluchil-patent-na-ispolzovanie-slogana-ingushetiya-rodina-bashen
    • Reviewed:

Created by Muqale (talk). Self-nominated at 06:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ingush towers; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Very good first article, thank you. No need for QPQ, article long enough, cited, picture freely licensed, passes earwig, all good to go. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This hook was pulled from the Queue. The text from WT:DYK has been copy-pasted below. When this is resolved, this can be reapproved. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is uncited prose in the article, which I have marked with a cn tag. I also think the block quote at the end of the "Towers with pyramidal roofs" section is too long and opens Wikipedia up to copyright concerns. This should be summarised in the article instead. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are more issues. The quote about the "land of towers" translates as "birthplace of towers" for me. Also, this looks like an unattributed translation from ruwiki. —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Kusma, the Russian word "родина" translates as "homeland". As a proficient Russian and English speaker, I didn't feel that "homeland of towers" was a good way to translate the slogan, so I shortened it to "land of towers". But if you feel that "homeland of towers" is more accurate, I have no issues with keeping your suggestion. Muqale⠀ོ 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muqale, I think the source with "родина башен" is not sufficient for the "country of towers" claim in the hook. Speaking of sources, I just checked Dolgieva et al. p 136 ([1]), and could not see any mention of Ingushetia as "country of towers". Could you give a more explicit source that confirms "country of towers" or "land of towers" instead of "homeland of towers"? —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muqale: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: the following was posted by Muqale directly on Talk:Ingush towers rather than posted to this template; I have moved the below comments from there to here, adjusted the indentation to fit, and am pinging Kusma, who this is a response to: BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. The statement in the article has a reference to the state newspaper of the Republic of Ingushetia in which the tourism committee announced the patent approval for the slogan. See here
2. Two other references to books are alse linked to this statement in the article:
a) Basilov, Vladimir; Kobychev, Veniamin (1971). "Галгай — страна башен" [Galgai: country of towers] (PDF). Советская этнография (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka (3): 120–135. (p.s.: Ghalghai is the self-name of the Ingush people)
b) Tarakanova, Marina (2023). Самые лучшие места России и мира 4D [The best places in Russia and the world 4D] (in Russian). Nalchik: Mezhizdat. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-5-17-152205-6. (see first paragraph on page 51) --Muqale 02:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kusma please advise if the above solves the issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, these citations are enough for the "land of towers". I don't have time to look at the article thoroughly right now, please continue any re-review without me. —Kusma (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT1: ... that Ingushetia is often called "the land of towers" after the Ingush towers, unique medieval monuments found throughout the region? seems to be alright, per above, but there is still the matter of the lengthy quote Muqale, which needs to be paraphrased or cut. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest this little modification the the ALT1 hook because I think Ingushetia deserves to be linked:
ALT1a: ... that Ingushetia is often called "the land of towers" after the Ingush towers, unique medieval monuments found throughout the region?
Since I checked Basilov, Tarakanova and Dolgieva sources and all mention "Страна башен" and "страны башен" when referring to Ingushetia, I consider the references' hook solved. Muqale, the only thing left for the hook of the article to be approved is to remove the quote from "Towers with pyramidal roofs" section as AirshipJungleman29 mentioned. --2x2leax (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2x2leax I have removed the quote from 'Towers with pyramidal roofs'. ALT1a hook also looks good to me. Muqale 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on December 18[edit]

Hardpoint (missile defense)

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

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

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

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Zoé Clauzure, Cœur (song)

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

  • Full review needed now that QPQs have been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At 1382 bytes, Cœur (song) is too short for the DYK requirement. Moscow Connection, would you prefer to put the nomination on hold until it's expanded or to withdraw it and go with just the Clauzure article? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note that the IPA template in the lede causes unexpected (incorrect) results from DYK check in the form of about 200 extra characters to its count; the "Cœur" article is indeed short of the 1500 prose characters required and will need to be expanded further. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While we're waiting, I'll go ahead and review Zoé Clauzure, which can run alone if the expansion isn't forthcoming. The nomination was a few hours late, though it was New Year's, so some leeway can of course be given. Article prose is above minimum length, but there are some referencing issues. There are a few bare URLs, including a citation to RIA Novosti, which, reliability issues aside, isn't optimal in an English Wikipedia article about a French singer. And what is the purpose of the refn template added in this edit? Hook is within length and verified to the Eurovision press release, though it doesn't capture interest. Maybe consider something that touches on the song's subject of bullying? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lissandro

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

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

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

I have found a source [2], but I will search for a better one tomorrow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't find a better source for the complete sentence ("On 28 October 2022, the song was released as a single"), but I have found a source for the song being released as a single by MCA, see my edit: [3]. (The Parisien article is partially behind a paywall, so I added a Google snippet quote.) I hope it is enough, the release date is still sourced from Apple Music. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Moscow Connection: I removed the birth date and left the year, and changed the date of the single's release to the month of release so everything is cited now. I think this one is ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
information Note: The article is very short, at only 1570 bytes of prose, and with lots of possibilities for concision. I am unwilling to promote such a borderline article; other promoters may disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll expand it tomorrow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After recent copyediting (for concision?), the article is now down to 1250 prose characters, nowhere near enough. Moscow Connection, it's been five days and that expansion you said you'd do remains undone. Please complete the now-required expansion in the next couple of days if you wish to continue pursuing this nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 26[edit]

Euan Duthie, Lord Duthie

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

  • Per WP:DYKLEN, the minimum length for an article to be eligible for DYK is 1500 characters. This article only barely scrapes by (1503 using my character counting tool). This count includes the rather substantial number of titles he's held, which accounts for a large proportion of the prose. I would appreciate, if possible, even just one more sentence about him that describes what he was doing at these positions or if anyone expressed thoughts about his performance. If not, we can proceed–the article indeed narrowly clears the bar. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you, Pbritti. I have added some more facts (with citation), and according to DYK Check, the article now has 2379 characters. (I had hesitated to add those facts previously, because they are so depressing). Storye book (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Storye book: Upon review, I have BLPCRIME concerns about the addition. Earwig came back good, so I say you just need to consider some other addition to the article. However, work has suddenly precluded me from further reviewing. My sincerest apologies for leaving you here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There was actually nothing wrong with the addition that you are talking about, since no names were mentioned. BLPCRIME refers to individuals whose names are mentioned in the article, but my addition did not mention names. The link in the citation gives only newspaper headlines, which do not contain names. In order to find out those names, you would have to pay a subscription to get beyond the paywall - which is not our concern. However, I have replaced my edit with a general list of typical offences encountered by the sheriff. Our next reviewer will therefore have nothing to worry about. Storye book (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on December 29[edit]

Lobster-eye optics

Close-up view of crustacean's eyes
Close-up view of crustacean's eyes

Created by Artem.G (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lobster-eye optics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Grammar issues in article; copyedits needed. Also, history section doesn't mention Kaaret & Geissbuehler 1992, but that has no bearing on DYK. ALT0 is redundant to me. In English, saying "lobster-eye optics" implies that it "mimic[s] the structure of lobsters' eyes". So why not just say ... that lobster-eye optics will be used in several planned X-ray space telescopes? Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hey, thanks for the review! Kaaret & Geissbuehler added. I've copyedited the article a bit, but would be grateful if you'll list the issues you see. And you're right, the hook can be trimmed, thanks! Artem.G (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It was proposed in 1979, and first used in the Chinese technology demonstrator spacecraft Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy Do people really use the full term "technology demonstrator"? This sounds like a Wikipedia term. I've only heard "tech demo" and "prototype", but it may just be the case that this is a new term for me. I've never seen it used in reference to a new telescope. Don't they usually just call it a prototype telescope, or is there a major difference with a "technology demonstrator" spacecraft? Something about the full term doesn't sound right to me. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the sources say "SATech-01 is an exploration satellite aimed at test and demonstration of the new technologies", I think that 'technology demonstrator' is the same thing but shorter. Artem.G (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps to you, but I'm not seeing any currency for that usage. I would suggest going with what most sources use and not choosing new and unusual terms. "Technology demonstrator" reads very odd to me, and I don't recall ever seeing it in the literature like this. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I disagree - it's a common term. See for example [4] A technology demonstrator for development of ultra-lightweight, large aperture, deployable telescope for space applications, ESA The camera has been designed as a technology demonstrator, or [5] The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Coronagraph Instrument is a critical technology demonstrator for NASA's Habitable Worlds Observatory.. Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TIL. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First major space telescope that uses lobster-eye optics is Chinese Einstein Probe, launched in 2024. That sentence is too informal and needs to be cleaned up. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand that. What's informal here that should be changed? EP is the first space telescope with LE Thag is not a prototype, so the sentence is correct. Artem.G (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It reads like broken English to me, or informal discourse. If I was to formalize it for Wikipedia, I might write "The Chinese Einstein Probe is the first major space telescope to use lobster-eye optics." Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, will use it! Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lobster-eye optics mimic the structure of the crustacean's (lobster's) eyes, that are made up of long, narrow cells that each reflect a tiny amount of light from a given direction This should be rewritten. Maybe something like: "The eyes of a crustacean are made up of long, narrow cells that each reflect a tiny amount of light from a given direction. Lobster-eye optics technology mimic this structure..." Viriditas (talk)
  • idealized LE optic is almost free from vignetting except near the edge of the FoV Do you mean field of view? You'll need to spell things out for the general reader. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Artem.G: That's just to start, but there's a lot more. I can try to take a closer look later, but I would really recommend getting an editor who specializes in copy editing to also take a look. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, will try GOCE. Artem.G (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Query: why is the picture one of a shrimp's eyes when the article is about the optics of lobster's eyes? This doesn't seem to be an appropriate picture to run for this DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It's called "lobster-eye", but any crustacean eye works for the illustration. I've added "crustacean" to the article. Artem.G (talk)
  • I agree, but you may want to construct a footnote in the article explaining this anatomical similarity. People will easily get confused and this will just come up again. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Several space telescopes that use lobster-eye optics are under construction. Joint French-Chinese SVOM is expected to be launched in July 2024. SMILE, a space telescope project by ESA and the CAS, is planned to be launched in 2025. ESA's THESEUS is now under consideration. This is all unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just had another user check this out. This nomination meets and exceeds the requirements. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hey, I missed the reply somehow, sorry for that. I didn't know about this rule, but the text I've copied from LEIA was added there by me just a few days before. Anyway, I wouldn't object if you'll fail this nomination. If not, I'll try to address all remaining comments in the next few days. Artem.G (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not failing this nomination. I said it meets and exceeds the criteria. I had to be sure, so I asked for additional input. There are a lot of rules and it's difficult to be mindful of them at all times, so I will often ask for help. Also, I very much want to see that cool image of crustacean eyes on the main page, so please, let's fix this article and get it ready. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nice, thanks! I've very little time this week, but I've copyedited the article a bit, and removed ambiguity about the photo (or so I hope). Artem.G (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artem.G: I know you are busy, but I made some copyedits you should review.[7] I also think the large blockquote in the history section should either be paraphrased by you or cut down to its most important part. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That looks good. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit, everything looks good! I never saw 'biomimetics' used for LE before, but I found several articles that uses it. Artem.G (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term and its synonyms are quite common in the literature and appear in most of your sources. For example, Hudec & Feldman 2022: "Crustaceans eyes such as lobsters, shrimps and crayfish, provide an excellent oppor-tunity for biomimicking and creating novel X-ray optics." Biomimetics is biomimicry. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Artem.G:, do you have access to the 2018 book Remote and Robotic Investigations of the Solar System by Christopher R. Kitchin?[8] You can find copies online or in your local library. I think this source would resolve 99% of any outstanding issues as it explains the entire concept in easy to understand, everyday language and compares it to other similar technology, giving it proper context and coverage. This would greatly help our readers understand the subject. I think if you were to use this source to revise what you currently have, we could probably wrap this up and pass the hook. Please take a look when you have time. Viriditas (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks, will look into it tomorrow! Artem.G (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Artem.G: It's mostly on pp. 122-123, but there's a bit more on p. 128 regarding honeycomb collimaters. The content is fairly small, so I could email it to you, but the book itself does have some nice diagrams and graphics. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hey, I've added a bit, please take a look. Artem.G (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from copyediting, I don't think there's anything left to do at this point. Sometimes it's a good idea to have more than one hook available if another reviewer or promoter finds something wrong, but it's not necessary or required. I will try to wrap this up. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artem.G: Copyedits needed to lead. You forgot to sync the new edits with the old ones. Lead currently says first was Chinese instead of US. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated, though LEIA is still important, and NASA's experiment was on sub-orbital rocket.Artem.G (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lobster-eye optics can be used for backscattering imaging and is used for homeland security, detection of improvised explosive devices, non-destructive testing, and medical imaging

What about writing it this way instead: "Lobster-eye optics can be used for backscattering imaging in homeland security, the detection of improvised explosive devices, non-destructive testing, and medical imaging." Also, this seems out of place considering we are talking about space science applications. Is there a better place to put it or way to incorporate it into the article? You use it to start the section but then launch into space technology demonstrators. Is it even needed? Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm leaning towards removal, at least from this section, as it is out of place. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see large parts of the "Description" section were copied from statements made by Goddard PI Jordan Camp in a 2017 NASA article by Madison Arnold, presumably in the public domain. While it may be perfectly acceptable to copy large swaths of content from free sources into Wikipedia, in practice it needs to be done carefully, with attribution, and in a way that makes the content accessible to our readers. In this case, the description is specifically out of context, as it is discussing the X-ray Wide-Field Imager (WFI), it is quoting Camp with no attribution, and it has not been altered to fit the general topic. This is why it is always best to paraphrase, even when you are presented with free content to use, and to mindfully tailor the content to the topic at hand. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Viriditas asked me to take a look at the page, and I'm going to give it a copyedit that I think will help. Seeing the comment just above, however, I want to say that I'm probably not going to check for close paraphrasing, but that all close paraphrasing must have been completely removed before this DYK can be passed.
I also think that the hook should be run without the image of the mantis shrimp eyes. The image does not do much to help the reader understand the telescope mechanisms, and the confusion noted above, that a mantis shrimp is not a lobster, would make for confusion on the main page. (I have no problem with keeping the image at the article.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources suggests that the current use of the content is acceptable, but from an editorial POV, it may need to be cleaned up for other reasons. In other words, close paraphrasing in this particular example is allowed, but it's not something I'm used to dealing with so it's a bit confusing for me. Relevant passage: "A public domain source may be summarized and cited in the same manner as for copyrighted material, but the source's text can also be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article. If text is copied or closely paraphrased from a free source, it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details)." My initial concern was that the passage used is so far removed from its initial context that there could be some errors involved. That's one of the reasons I wanted an astronomer (or a neuroscientist!) to review it. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have to do some digging to link to it (and don't feel like doing that), but there have been major scandals in the past about copyvios and overly close paraphrasing in DYK pages, and there is a very strong sense in the community that we don't want anything of that sort appearing on the Main Page. For me, at least, the minimum policy requirements for PD sources is too low a bar. I think a simple way to deal with it is to Google passages from the page, and look at hits that aren't WP mirrors. (I always do that when doing DYK reviews, myself.) Of course, if you have any of the cited sources in hand, you can compare that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me, at least, the minimum policy requirements for PD sources is too low a bar. I completely agree, and that's my position as well, but as far as I understand it, the current version is policy compliant, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. As for the example you requested, take a look at this source. That's where some of the content from the "Description" section comes from. As you can see, it might be accurate, and it might be relevant, but it's completely out of context of the original source. I'm not sure if I'm just being too critical and nitpicky or if this needs to be cleaned up. As I said before, this is not how I write or edit articles, so I'm not familiar with the practice of copying free content like this. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can list any other sources like that, as well, I'll try to clean all of them up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it is limited to just three sources, numbered in the reference section itself as citation 1 (Ma et al. 2023), 3 (NASA 2017), and 4 (Zhang et al. 2022). You can tell because each citation says "Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" or "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now completed a reasonably careful copyedit of the page, and I feel comfortable supporting it for promotion. I think it's acceptably readable for the subject matter, and it's a very interesting and encyclopedic page. I've also checked it for the paraphrasing issues. I found, and corrected, some overly close copying from the public domain NASA source. I also ran the page through the Earwig tool, to check if I had missed anything, and it passed decisively. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same as ALT0, but without the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tryptofish: Thank you, but I think we can still salvage a top-placed image. Astrophysicist Jordan B. Camp at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has a relevant image we can use. Because the entire image is composed of three separate images and too long horizontally to use in its original form, I will just cut it up into two images and stack the two on top of one in a square-shape. This will be perfect for use here as it indeed shows a close up view of the eyes of a lobster along with the microchannel plate in comparison. I think its perfect, and I've seen similar images used on DYK before. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded five images here. I'm not that keen on how they turned out. If anyone wants to use them here, you know where to find them. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, nice images! Artem.G (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note, the Mercury Imaging X-ray Spectrometer (MIXS) currently on board BepiColombo (launched 2018) apparently uses similar microchannel geometry.[9][10] Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! It's seems to be almost the same, similar to that of the so-called "lobster eye" telescope, except that the channel lengths are chosen to maximise the energy-independent "straight through" component of the flux, rather than the low energy focused component, but I'll update it. Artem.G (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I was hoping we could use an image per the nom's wishes, but after looking into this, and even uploading new images, I don't see any that are truly conducive to the hook at the moment; the main problem was that several different editors expressed concerns about the mantis image and it did lead to unnecessary confusion. Per the above discussion, article is new and long enough, well-sourced, neutral, and copyvio free (although it incorporates public domain content per the nom). The article is presentable, and the QPQ is complete. As far as WP:DYKHOOKCITE goes, it is unfortunate, but there is no single, cited hook in the article that supports the idea "that lobster-eye optics will be used in several planned X-ray space telescopes". Yes, it is a true statement based on many different sources collected by the nominator, but the way DYK generally works is spelled out in WP:DYKG: "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change, and citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook and be reliable. The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information – if the source is not willing to the say the fact in its own voice, the hook should attribute back to the original source as well." With that said, I just spent ten minutes looking for sources that could support this hook. I could not find any. The closest source I could find to supporting this hook is this one, but it's incredibly ambiguous and isn't good enough. We need a solid hook, firmly backed by at least a single source, that is unambiguous and reliable. Since Tryptofish has shown interest in this topic, perhaps they could offer some ideas for new hooks. I notice that there's no information about the role played by the French company Photonis and researchers at the University of Leicester in bringing this technology to fruition. That could make a good hook. More information here and here. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ALT2: ... that lenses for telescopes are being designed using optics inspired by lobster eyes?
I think that's well-sourced on the page, because it's about the lens design instead of about future space missions. And I think it's hook-y. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tryptofish: Thanks. While it is true that in general, telescope lenses are designed using optics based on lobster eye geometry, how about composing a hook that gets into the meat and potatoes of the article, describing 1) what makes the eyes of lobsters special (reflective eyes) and 2) how it was emulated, designed, and applied to X-ray optics technology for the purpose of capturing transient astronomical events? And, try to write that in only 70-160 characters. To me, that captures the heart of this subject while conveying the essential information to our readers. Are you up for writing an awe-inspiring ALT3, or do you think we should settle on ALT2? Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was about to reply ALT2, but if we're willing to settle for not-quite awe-inspiring, then:
  • ALT3: ... that lenses for telescopes are being designed using optics inspired by the reflective properties of lobster eyes?
If you like that addition, OK, but I could also make a case for ALT2, because it leaves the reader with more reasons to click-through. I'm fine with either 2 or 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would help ALT2 and ALT3 to eliminate passive voice. The general sense of "lenses for telescopes" skips and misses out on the entire focus on X-ray optics and the search for transients, which is what the lobster eye design makes possible, but I suppose I will have to live with that. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT4: ... that optics intended for X-ray telescopes are inspired by the reflective properties of lobster eyes?
If you want to get transients in there too, I'll leave that to you. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't propose and review a hook. In terms of the above, isn't it much easier and to the point to just say "that X-ray space telescopes use optics inspired by the reflective properties of lobster eyes?" Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had two reasons for doing it that way. First, I felt it necessary to say "intended for" because of your concern that we don't have enough sourcing for "will be used in", in ALT0. Second, I put the link to the nominated page at the beginning, because of your concern (that we discussed elsewhere) that you don't want a blue link to precede the link to the nominated page (although I suppose we could just not link to X-ray telescopes – but it does seem to me to be something that needs to be linked). In any case, my opinion is that this is DYK not FA, and it's time to declare victory and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"But my list of concerns is much longer!" Viriditas reaches into his vest and pulls out a long elfin scroll, the kind of scroll you might find in Santa's workshop, which promptly unfurls and rolls across the floor, making a series of paper-like rustling sounds, until the scroll finishes unfolding, clear across the room. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Illustration of the 12 lobster-eye optics sensor modules on the Einstein Probe
  • ALT5: .. that the Einstein Probe is the first major space telescope to use lobster-eye optics, which will help locate the source of gravitational waves? Source: Arasa, Dale (December 24, 2023). "China will launch first-ever 'lobster eye’ telescope'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Quote: "China will launch the world’s first lobster eye telescope to detect and study X-ray sources. As a result, it could help us learn more about gravity, one of the fundamental universal forces"; European Space Agency (January 9, 2024). "Einstein Probe lifts off on a mission to monitor the X-ray sky". Quote: "Thanks to its uniquely wide gaze, we will be able to catch the X-ray light from collisions between neutron stars and find out what is causing some of the gravitational waves we detect on Earth. Often, when these elusive space-time ripples are registered, we cannot locate where they are coming from. By promptly spotting the burst of X-rays, we will pinpoint the origin of many gravitational wave events."
The only problem with that hook and photo is that it's boring, but that's just my opinion. And now the focus is shifted from the optics design to the space telescope. That's probably fine though, as I don't have either time or energy to debate it. ALT4 is probably closest to the original one. Artem.G (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RoySmith: This is actually the first! New reviewer needed. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Whoever will be the new reviewer (I've been involved in revising the page and proposing hooks, so I won't be me): I feel more favorably about the nomination than Viriditas did, and I'd be fine with either ALT2, ALT3, or ALT4. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dora and the Fantastical Creatures

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

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

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

Zingo156 have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Davest3r08 AirshipJungleman29 apologies for not answering speedily. Yeah, I will address the articles problems before the end of January. Zingo156 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zingo156: Have the issues been resolved, and thus this is ready for a review? If issues are not resolved soon, this nomination might be closed as unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Yeah I just attended to them. Sorry for the wait. Zingo156 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davest3r08: Per the above, this nomination is ready for you to continue your review. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Z1720. (courtesy pinging @Zingo156)
Anyways:

Articles created/expanded on December 30[edit]

Madeleine Steere

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

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

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

  • @Grnrchst: Thank you for your review. The said issues are addressed. Please check. CeeGee 09:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for seeing to it! I still think the lead could be a bit longer, but am happy to pass this review the now. Nice work :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for approving. You are free to expand the lede. CeeGee 06:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not interesting to me, but I don't know anything about college sports either. Why is "2018 All-American team" in scare quotes? What in particular makes this interesting? They have an all-american team every year. What makes this person being selected to it special? Grammar nit: shouldn't it be "selected for" instead of "selected in"?
  • CeeGee I don't think this hook meets the interestingness criterion. Is it possible for you to find a better one? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have also tagged it as needing copyediting; there are numerous odd errors ("She capped in 67 international matches", "She enjoyed her team's champions title", etc.). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Copyedited accordingly. I can not locate "etc." Thanks for your check. CeeGee 06:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have not. CeeGee, it might be good for you to nominate this article at WP:GOCE. In any case, you have not provided a new hook; unless you propose a new one which meets the criteria, this nomination will be rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Articles created/expanded on December 31[edit]

Angie Appleton

Created by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Self-nominated at 00:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Angie Appleton; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: This was a fun article to review, not what I expected and I think that's what makes this a good DYK. The copyvio tool flagged this article a couple times but after checking all the copyvio flags were for quotes which were handled correctly. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: the same issues outlined by theleekycauldron at Template:Did you know nominations/Lacey Lloyd apply here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't replied to the other DYK yet as I am unwell, but I honestly do not see what the issue is with this article. There are reliable sources not only from Digital Spy, Radio Times, What to Watch and Inside Soap, but also sources from Female First, Manchester Evening News, Woman's Own, Liverpool Echo, OK! and other completely non-TV related news outlets. There is information that talks about the character's storylines, yes, but this is essential in order to explain the out of universe infob– for example, Angie's feud with Mary links to the reception that was received from viewers and links to how the soap was praised for depicting post-natal depression, and it also affects her characterisation; the marital problems section also links to how viewers wanted to see Angie with another man and also leads to the character's departure; the introduction section shows how Angie's character changed the dynamics of other characters and storylines; Angie accusing Mary of hurting her son showed how fans had been making fan theories about the storyline and showed how the actress was worried about receiving hate from the role, and so on. Plus, nearly all of the information is accompanied by the actor's thoughts on the stoylines and development of the character. So yes, there is sourced information about the storylines, but this is needed in order to properly talk about the out of universe info. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)#Reply[reply]
The issue is that there is excessive detail on the in-universe information @DaniloDaysOfOurLives:. Take the "Feud with Mary and postpartum depression" section—there are over 900 words of plot details, which according to you are all essential to explain the 200 words of out-of-universe information? Not even a third of them are "essential"; most of them could easily be cut without compromising the article's intelligibility or comprehensiveness.
WP:WAF, which requires that the prose length "be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself" is a guideline, and thus not optional. Also remember WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which is policy: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Have you addressed AirshipJungleman29's concerns? Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DaniloDaysOfOurLives has been editing Wikipedia, but has not returned to address these concerns. Unless DDOOL returns, or someone is willing to adopt this nomination, this should be closed. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started trimming down the article about a week ago, but I realised that if I trimmed the article even more, then the content would be compromised and the article's quality would be reduced. Hence, unfortunately I am considering withdrawing this nomination. I really did not want to, as I spent a LONG time on this article and it was already approved and ready to go, but I would rather the quality stay good rather than cut things out just for a DYK. I will try to cut a bit more this weekend and ping back later. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the article's quality being low is what is preventing it from running. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very happy to adopt this nomination, as I originally started Ekanoye's article, and it would be nice to give her an outing on the front page! Straight away I've binned the entire development section; aside from it being in the wrong place, most if not all of the content is either duplicated by the Storylines section or extraneous. I will pillage that section for anything left over - I need a day.--Launchballer 19:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but I was contemplating over the past few days of what to do. In all honesty, I really do not think this is the correct way. If anything the storylines should be removed, NOT the development which is fully sourced and includes real world information. Please allow me a day to cut this down but please do not just removed an entire section, which took weeks to write. Update: I have removed the storylines sections and began cutting down. Should be finished by tomorrow.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UPDATE: @AirshipJungleman29: I have removed the storylines section and cut down the development by a lot (more than a 1/3). It honestly pains me to do it, but it is better than removing the entire development section, which removed sourced real world information. I hope now it is ready to go. Please ping me if there are any questions. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 1[edit]

Gallery (New Orleans)

Iron galleries in New Orleans
Iron galleries in New Orleans

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

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 2[edit]

Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center

Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center in 2016
Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center in 2016

Created by DarkNight0917 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - N
  • Other problems: No - Not to many people know what "nagaya houses" are. I found it interesting that the floors were slanted; I'd be interested on how a hook is formulated based on this fact.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: It's concerning that there some references are not reliable. These are refs #7 (Tokyo Tourist Information) and #15 (Asakusa Station). If other references can be used to replace this, aside from a better hook, then we can proceed. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Howard the Duck: I have addressed the referencing issues and removed the problematic sources. For the hooks, I came up with a few other options:
Hope this helps. - DarkNight0917 | (t/c) 05:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd prefer the third suggestion.
Upon checking, there are still a couple of problematic refs, this time from Japan Travel (refs #7 and #18). I suppose facts like what the motto of the building is and that you can buy refreshments there is rather mundane, but the center offering maps and brochures in other languages rather than Japanese seems important, as it gives the impression that the center also caters to foreign tourists and not just domestic ones. If that can be replaced, this is good to go. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 6[edit]

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support this version. NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on, unlike original and ALT1. --Chefallen (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chefallen and Shrike: - would either of you like to approve ALT3 then and mark this nomination as ready? I mean, the opposition to original hook and ALT1 is clear, surely the DYK promoter would not choose those. starship.paint (RUN) 15:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the court rejected the cease fire demand we need to reflect this in hook [20] --Shrike (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT3 is factually incorrect taking a strict view. And its given source is dated Jan 11, well before the recent Order with detailed discussion, so the source is speculative. South Africa did not ask for a two sided "ceasefire". Going to the ICJ judgement, it records that South Africa asked for "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza" (page 3). SA actually asked for a one-sided "suspension", not a "ceasefire". So a DNY claiming something that is demonstrably not in the actual Order is a pretty silly. The ICJ did in fact order a provisional measure that Israel prevent the commission of "(a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", (measure 1 on pages 24-25) where "group" is roughly the Palestinian population of Gaza, so did in fact order something approximating to what SA asked. (As Palestine (or Hamas) is not a State Party to the Convention, I doubt that ICJ can actually order either of them to do things, hence SA did not ask for that.) Rwendland (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. ALT3 is simply not correct - the case is aimed at stopping an actual or potential genocide, depending on your point of view. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Struck. starship.paint (RUN) 02:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was wrong with the original main hook again? It was completely factual per the ICJ filing by South Africa and is interesting because apartheid isn't as much discussed about the filing as compared to the genocide aspect. SilverserenC 02:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]

Yes, And?

Created by Lk95 (talk). Nominated by Your Power (talk) at 04:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Yes, And?; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • @Lk95 and Your Power: A QPQ is still needed for this nom. If this is not provided in a few days, this will be marked for closure. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Doing a review. New enough at time of nom, no copyvio, long enough, two free use images (one in infobox and one of music video). To my understanding these should be ok, with the music video's image having a weaker case. QPQ done, sourcing good, article itself mostly good (there's some cleanup work that needs to be done, a good chunk of unsourced statements. Presumably this happened after your work). My main concern is the hook; it expresses I think a subjective statement without attribution to a source written in, potentially going against WP:VOICE. The hook could potentially be reworded to include an inline attribution or potentially just rewritten. My two cents, but as an unfamiliar reader I'd assume "her new x" implies it matches some qualities of her previous work, presumably popularity. I'm not familiar, do you think that the song achieved similar popularity to Thank U, Next, looking back now around a month later? Unfortunately this review came a bit late; maybe the speculative voice in the hook would work better if it had been reviewed sooner. toobigtokale (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lk95 and Your Power: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lk95 and Your Power have both been editing Wikipedia but have not returned to address the above. Unless they comment here, or someone is willing to adopt this nomination, this should be closed. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gebhard Schädler

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

  • ALT1 checks out. That said, I suggest that the words "academically trained" aren't necessary, hence the hook could be simplified. I haven't done the other DYK checks; hence no tick. Schwede66 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Full review needed now that an alternative hook has been suggested. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 9[edit]

Mullae Park

  • ... that a bust of South Korean president Park Chung Hee in Mullae Park had a Japanese Rising Sun Flag tied to it and was dragged through the streets? Source: [21] (in Korean). Relevant quote and translation: 2000년 민족문제연구소 회원 등이 박정희가 '한 목숨 다해 충성함'이라는 충성혈서까지 써서 만주국 일본군관학교에 입학했고, 이후 일본군 장교로 복무한 친일 경력에 주목해 이 흉상에 욱일승천기를 씌운 뒤 밧줄로 묶어 쓰러트려 홍익대로 가져가려다가 징역 1년 6개월 형을 선고받았다. -> In 2000, members of the Center for Historical Truth and Justice announced that Park Chung Hee had sworn a blood oath where he wrote "Service Until Death" in order to enter a Japanese military academy, afterwards, with focus on his role as a Japanese collaborator, a Rising Sun Flag was tied to the bust, the bust was knocked over, and it was dragged to Hongik University. For this a one year and six month prison sentence was given.

Created by Toobigtokale (talk). Self-nominated at 16:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mullae Park; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 10[edit]

Stefano Černetić

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

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

Ethics (Abelard)

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 21:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ethics (Abelard); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 11[edit]

Myanmar Photo Archive

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

Articles created/expanded on January 12[edit]

HorsegiirL

5x expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 23:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/HorsegiirL; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Hook is not accurate, because it wasn't an actual horse. Gatoclass (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT1: struck for privacy reasons, see history
ALT2: ... that the British DJ Arielle Free was suspended from BBC Radio 1 for a week after criticising horsegiirL's "My Barn My Rules" live on air?
ALT3: ... that horsegiirL's "My Barn My Rules" appeared on Dazed's "20 best tracks of 2023" list?--Launchballer 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Overall: All three alts verified; my preference is for alt1. Gatoclass (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pulled over BLP privacy concerns. There is no ironclad secondary RS about the real name, and mentioning it seems to be against the subject's wishes. We definitely should not run ALT1, and I don't think we should have the subject's real name in the article at all. —Kusma (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A BLP privacy concern is a DYK showstopper. Schwede66 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for picking that up, Kusma. In reviewing the nomination, it never even occurred to me that the nominator might not have an ironclad link for so basic a fact as the identity of the artist, so did not check that particular hook fact. It seems from this point I cannot even rely on nominators to know the identity of their own subject, and I am really pissed about that because it just made all my future reviewing that much harder. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gatoclass, I would have likely missed this too, but fortunately Bernzrdo asked the right question on the talk page (after you had approved the nom). Also, I think the identification of the subject's name is likely correct, but it is all WP:SYNTH and not usable on a BLP, certainly not against the subject's wishes, and doubly certainly not on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Kusma, and yes, I very much agree, it's lucky that this was caught before it went to the MP. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her name appears in this source on Refresher (magazine) [cs], which seems reliable. I'll take another look at this when I get back.--Launchballer 10:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've expanded this slightly, although I'm slightly worried about the number of quotes in her early life - although arguably in this case, they really should be attributed.--Launchballer 11:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gatoclass: Have the above concerns been addressed? Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lewes Friends Meeting House, Horsham Friends Meeting House

Horsham Friends Meeting House in 2018
Horsham Friends Meeting House in 2018
  • ... that the Friends meeting houses in both Lewes and Horsham (pictured) were built in the 1780s for Quaker communities which have met continuously in those towns since the 17th century? Source: Reports from the Quaker Meeting Houses Heritage Project for the respective meeting houses, as cited in the articles: ref [1] for Lewes, ref [9] for Horsham; but for Horsham perhaps more clearly expressed in the Victoria County History of Sussex (ref [5]).

Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lewes Friends Meeting House; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Both articles recently created when nominated, and well developed past the length requirement. There are a few stylistic issues, most noticeably the overuse of unattributed quotations, especially in the lead of both articles. (Per WP:MOS#Attribution, the reader being able to identify the source of a quotation via an inline citation is the bare minimum, not the standard. Statements for which attribution isn't needed would probably better be presented in Wikipedia's own voice. It's not a major policy violation, though, so I won't hold it against the DYK nom.) I found the articles a bit hard to follow, though nothing actually wrong with the writing. Maybe it's the subject matter. The Horsham article notes discrepancies among sources regarding the construction date, but then takes the Quaker Meeting Houses Heritage Project's as the authoritative one, though its report does not go into detail on this. Unless there are other sources that comment on the Heritage Project's authority (and the date by extension), I would suggest that the article be reworded to take a less absolute stance. Verification of the hook would depend on such clarification. (It's not the most interesting, but the term "Friends meeting house" is about enough to pique interest by itself. Also, Friends meeting house should be linked in the article leads if possible, per WP:CONTEXTLINK, though it has citation needed tags so I'd understand not wanting to link them in DYK.) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul 012: Thanks for reviewing. I have re-reviewed all the sources and updated the text accordingly. The correct date was first recorded in the Victoria County History, citing Marsh's Early Friends in Surrey and Sussex, which I believe was published in 1886, and is then given in all other sources, including the Heritage Project (the date did not, as I had originally written, originate in the Heritage Project report; I have corrected this.) The incorrect 1834 date was given solely in the original (1965) version of the Buildings of England: Sussex and for unknown reasons was then repeated in the Horsham Historic Character Assessment report document (because according to its footnotes the HHCA cites the Victoria County History, which has the correct date!). Incidentally the Heritage Project was a recent, multi-year, in-depth survey of every Friends meeting house, commissioned by Historic England and Quakers in Britain (the national organisation) and undertaken by qualified architects, so its statements/conclusions are essentially definitive. Most quotes now have a citation directly after them; any which don't are supported by the citation at the end of the sentence in question. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Hook facts largely verified, but taking another look, I think it may be better to run these separately. The old place being too close to a slaughterhouse could work for the Lewis house. For Horsham, if the part about the headstones being used as paving slabs was mentioned in the article, that could be a good hook.
The issue with quotations here isn't that they need footnote citations (which are already provided), but that their frequency rather disrupts the flow of the text. If the verbatim wording of a quotation is important, it should be attributed within the text, e.g. "... ", according to such-and-such, or Such-and-such described it as "...". If such attribution isn't warranted, the statement should probably be paraphrased. Or for simple uncontroversial statements, just present it without quotation marks. With single words or short phrases especially, putting them in quotation marks has the effect of "scare quoting". For example, in the Horsham article, the description On the "simple" front (east) elevation seems to insinuate that the Wikipedia writer disagrees with the description. As I said though, these are suggestions for improvement that I won't regard as conditional for DYK. (And FYI, editing a comment to add a ping doesn't work; a notification is only sent when the edit includes a new paragraph and signature; see Help:Fixing failed pings.) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul 012: Thanks for your suggestions (plus the tip about pings). I have made some tweaks, possibly with more to come tomorrow when I have time to re-read fully. Based on your suggestion I will submit the following ALT hooks, forming two separate nominations; both are cited to the Heritage Reports and I have added citations in the relevant places: Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nippy (Better Call Saul)

Improved to Good Article status by Dcdiehardfan (talk). Self-nominated at 04:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nippy (Better Call Saul); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Not a review, and I review oldest first so I probably wouldn't get to this much before late February (but would not object to any other editor reviewing this in the meantime); WP:NYPOST is not a reliable source, so if you wanted that hook, you would need to find a better source.--Launchballer 08:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks @Launchballer. I also was thinking that in the back of my mind about the NY Post thing, and had to use it as it was the only primary source of the actor being interviewed saying so, unfortunately. I'll address the issue, and have opted to replace the primary hook with a new one, as shown above. Thank you for notifying me. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usual practice is to strike and propose new hooks as opposed to replacing them (since otherwise my comment doesn't make sense). The problem you have is that the NY Post is sufficiently unreliable that we don't trust them to not make it up, so we can't be sure that that interview did in fact happen. Thank you for the extra hook - full review needed.--Launchballer 11:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the error. I understand the NY Post error, so hopefully that should be fixed. With that being said, I plan on making ALT3 the prime hook. I look forward to the review, thank you. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Launchballer: I reviewed the page for GA but didnt bring up the source becasue given its an interview I thought that it was okay, should it be removed regaurdless? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would do so.--Launchballer 20:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant:, thank you for removing the content. @Launchballer: Sorry for the belated response, but I believe all the requirements should be addressed. At this current point, the actual DYK review awaits us, right? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a firm policy of doing my QPQs oldest first, as that's fair. I may revisit this if WT:DYK#Backlogs carries out its threat to time out nominations, but for now, please be patient. (Anyone else who wants a QPQ is free to review this in the interim.)--Launchballer 06:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, I completely comprehend. I just wanted to confirm that was all and ensure there was no other outstanding issues, thank you in advance for (hopefully) committing to reviewing this DYK. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Just from personal experience, I still think ALT0 is your best hook of the bunch above. Is there no way to find another reliable source for the claim? Note, as a fan of the show, a hook about the recasting of Harvey and Healy would be super interesting. It threw me and everyone who watched it for a loop when it aired. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Viriditas: Hey there! Thanks for responding. I also agree that ALT0 is my best hook, but unfortunately, the only direct claim is the NY Post interview. I also know that any secondary sources that report on the Cinnabon thing traces back to the NY Post thing, so that would be WP:FRUIT regardless. Perhaps the recast hook could work, it's something I considered early on, but I'm not sure how I would write it to be engaging to be quite honest. It's still not too late for me to go back and potentially edit my hook though is it? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dcdiehardfan: It probably doesn't matter all that much how you do it, but the recommended best practice is to simply add new hooks when making changes. I tend not to do that, but I think you're supposed to do it that way. Also, it's fascinating how much opinions change over time. I always found the BB/BCS fan community super toxic, and when "Nippy" originally came out, I seem to recall fans hating it on Reddit. Glad to see those vocal and highly negative voices have subsided over time. I tend not to participate in fan communities for this reason. If you create a new hook, try to move the hook link to the episode to the front of the hook. Any link that appears before it will steal views from the article. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Viriditas: I've went ahead and followed your advice and tried to do it to the best of my abilities. Feel free to correct me if I performed any steps incorrectly and I'm thankful for the recommendations. I'm not sure how to cite a podcast and specifically the timestamps specifically, and hope I did it right. And yes, I do agree that it's fascinating opinions can change over time, but you seldom see it happen for the positive. I didn't really notice a big backlash for Healy and rarely ever check Reddit bc well...anyways, I digress too much haha. And yes, I did heed your point on moving the hook link to the front, thank you. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: Great job! I recommend figuring out a way to move the link to the front of the hook, so that the episode is the first blue link. Otherwise, you could do it the opposite, moving it to the end, but eliminating all other links so that the viewers are forced to visit this article to find out more. Basically, although it sounds counterintuitive, you want to get in the habit of limiting the links, not increasing them (for the aforementioned reason, links preceding will steal views, etc.) Try playing around with different variations of ALT4 until you find one that really works. Sometimes you will find that the best inspiration for a hook comes not from thinking about it, but from putting it aside and thinking about other things. I find that I do my best work either during or after a brisk walk or jog, as it increases blood flow to my brain, but I assume that's TMI. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dcdiehardfan: To better prepare for this DYK, I just watched the episode again. I will complete a full review in just a little bit. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Aside from your hooks, the only complaint I have about the article is this sentence in the lead: "some felt the episode had little purpose in the show's narrative". I'm not sure that should really be there since 1) that criticism seems fairly unbalanced and undue for various reasons, and 2) there are more notable, more balanced criticisms you could use instead, and 3) the idea that the episode "had little purpose" seems frankly unbelievable, since the episode serves the deliberate purpose of a) explaining how Jimmy deals with and eliminates the threat of Jeff blowing his cover by implementing the MAD strategy; and b) this specific episode introduces us to the circumstances leading directly to Jimmy's eventual incarceration. Just wanted to throw that out there since it struck me as odd and out of place, and brought back memories of the original Reddit discussion which was completely out of left field. One wonders if that initial criticism was made out of sequence of the subsequent episodes which shows how it fits into the overall narrative arc. If so, that would explain the problem (in other words, the criticism was written prior to the episodes showing the denouement), and perhaps there is a way to rephrase that to show that reviewers were confused until later episodes tied it all together, I don't know, but if there's a way to do it, it would likely explain the overall problem. When the episode originally came out, people were freaking out on Reddit, and I'm not going to lie, I was also a bit confused as to how it fit into the narrative, but this was cleared up in subsequent episodes giving us that information. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, the criticism that "some felt the episode had little purpose in the show's narrative" is half-true, but there's another half to it, which is that this confusion was quickly cleared up as the arc progressed. Furthermore, David Segal's negative review demonstrates his confusion as it was written before the next episode, and it is sure to go down as one of the worst blunders in entertainment history, perhaps similar to Siskel and Ebert panning Blade Runner. I am deeply curious if Segal has already recanted his review (someone should look into that), since there is now a general consensus that "Nippy" is a cinematic and artistic masterpiece, and frankly, I don't think the lead does enough to fix this kind of unbalance or to explain why people found it hard to understand at the time, but quickly changed their tune as the arc progressed towards its resolution. My opinion is that good art is something that takes time to digest, it's not something you can quickly consume like fast food. I think some critics and audiences are so conditioned to consuming "fast food" entertainment, that when presented with a haute cuisine-like form of media, they don't know what to make of it. This argument is not my own, it was recently presented to me by another person who was trying to explain why some people dislike Oppenheimer and other Nolan films and think Nolan is a terrible filmmaker. There's this idea that if you can't consume a piece of entertainment fully in one sitting, it's "confusing" or out of place, or doesn't work. This was my third time viewing "Nippy", and it just gets better every time I see it. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Just saw Erik Kain's negative review on Forbes.[23] While I don't agree with him, he is honest enough to add a lengthy update to his review explaining how he received pushback on his review and discussing how controversial the episode was for fans and divided the community. There's also some interesting discussion by fans in the comment section that further expands on this. Looking into this deeper, it turns out that the cast and crew have discussed this here and there. My reading of this from the POV of the writers and directors, is that they made a conscious choice to go in a different direction with this episode, and while this worked for them, it alienated a lot of people in the audience because they had expectations about where the show was supposed to go. So my reading of the controversy isn't that this is a bad episode, but that it violated the expectations of the audience in a way that left them temporarily befuddled and confused. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dcdiehardfan: I found additional sources independent of the NYP to support your preference for ALT0. I will list them shortly. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first source is the official Better Call Saul Insider Podcast podcast. McCaleb, Chris; Dixon, Kelley (26 July 2022). "610 Better Call Saul Insider". Better Call Saul Insider Podcast (Podcast). Sony Pictures Television. Event occurs at 48:29. Retrieved 19 February 2024. Michelle MacLaren: (48:29) "Jim had to eat so many Cinnabons. I mean, it was insane and we had all these [tricks] and everything. (48:53) So that, I mean, we literally at one point, he would go up to his mouth and then he would pass it off to somebody who would grab it behind his head with a fork or he'd spit it out, but he did have to eat some."
Second source: Michelle MacLaren: "That last bite is placed there for tension, because as soon as that bite is in his mouth, you’re done, if you’re not done. We build it up through repetition – it should be incredibly nerve racking at that point. It’s fun to do things like that, because you can go closer and closer, you’re making a big deal, but about somebody eating a Cinnabon. I will say hats off to Jim O’Heir, because he had to eat a lot. We had a lot of spit takes and stuff, but still, I mean, wow, that was that was very challenging to to do. He is amazing."[24]
Third source: "And then of course the Cinnabons. First of all, I was so excited about Jim O'Heir [who played Frank]. He's the number one person to play that part. I called Jim when we were in prep and I said, "So, Jim, do you like Cinnabons? You're going to have to eat a lot of Cinnabons and I just wanted to prepare you for that." He laughed and he said, "You got the absolute right person to play this part." He loves Cinnabons! But, I don't know if you can even eat a whole one because they're just so heavy. He was such a trooper with that.We had all these different tricks, but he did have to eat a few Cinnabons."[25]

Sorry, that's all I could find. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I realize that this just passed GA, but the prose is pretty rough. I made a few brief copyedits to the production section, but I would recommend taking another look at the plot section. The rule of thumb is that the prose should never stop the reader in their tracks. Think of the reader as a paddler in a canoe. The prose should push the reader along like the current of a lazy river. It should be a smooth, calm ride without any rocks or rapids. I could barely make it through the plot section in its current form. Aside from that minor issue, I think you could rewrite a new Cinnabon hook based on your chosen ALT0 (now crossed out) using the sources I added up above, but that's just a suggestion; it may not be enough to go on and could just be discarded, it's really up to you. As for ALT1, ALT2, and ALT4, I think you're on the right track, and a hook based on Carol Burnett, the region where it was shot, or the recasting of Jeff would conceivably work and generate interest, but the way you've got it written right now doesn't really work for me. I suppose I could go ahead and pass ALT3, but I truly wonder if other people outside of BCS fandom will find it interesting. I will await new hooks like a Hobbit awaiting second breakfast, but if none are forthcoming, I will pass ALT3. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 College Football Playoff National Championship

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

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

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


Articles created/expanded on January 13[edit]

Jade Armor

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

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

Jewish cemetery, Hoorn

Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 21:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jewish cemetery, Hoorn; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

M-Beat

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

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

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


Articles created/expanded on January 14[edit]

Perihan Çınar

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

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

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

  • Modified a little. Sportspeople need license to perform a sport in a club. CeeGee 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris Armstrong (political theorist)

  • ... that the British political theorist Chris Armstrong calls for a "blue new deal" to secure ecological resilience for the ocean and a just blue economy? Source: From this review of Armstrong's Blue New Deal: "He argues it is time to rethink our relationship with the ocean to foster a resilient environment and a just economy at sea."
    • Reviewed: TBD
    • Comment: I think the phrase "blue new deal" is a great one; I hope you agree!

Moved to mainspace by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chris Armstrong (political theorist); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Comment: He is the author of several books, including 2017's Justice and Natural Resources and 2022's A Blue New Deal Is this a common format or style in the UK? I much prefer the readability of He is the author of several books, including Justice and Natural Resources (2017) and A Blue New Deal (2022) For some reason, dates with apostrophes look exceptionally strange on my screen. Not sure why. I tried to review this nom and got stuck at the dates. Heh. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Viriditas: Ok; I've phrased. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I just briefly read through the article and didn’t notice any problems, but I haven’t spot checked the sources just yet. I did notice that the bit about "Armstrong's central practical proposal is the need for a 'World Ocean Authority' to oversee the high seas" is very timely, and it’s a point I’ve heard come up again and again in any discussion about ocean resources. In fact, it’s very possible that I heard Armstrong himself discuss it a few months ago, I can’t recall, but I wonder if you might consider submitting an ALT1 along those lines. Also, would you consider submitting more than one QPQ to help with the backlog? I just submitted four for my last submission. I realize that’s asking a lot, but even two would help. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 15[edit]

Matt Stoller

  • ... that Matt Stoller believes that breaking up monopolies is “so central and so urgent that nearly any other cause or political relationship should be sacrificed in service of it”? Source: “ For many who knew Stoller or were familiar with his work, his boosting of Hawley was perhaps not surprising. Stoller is known for his dogmatic belief that taking on corporate power by breaking up companies that have gotten too big is the goal — so central and so urgent that nearly any other cause or political relationship should be sacrificed in service of it. His defense of Hawley, who had just a few years earlier become the first state attorney general to sue Google on antitrust grounds, was just the latest example.” Politico

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Matt Stoller; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Hermann Collitz

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

(alternative hook which I found interesting) ALT1: ... that the German linguist Hermann Collitz had studied four languages at school by the age of 13, in addition to two more he encountered at home? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 20[edit]

Jo-anne Wilkinson

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

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

Wentworth-Bland flag

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

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

  • Comment. This is less about the DYK eligibility, and I'm sure this is fine as an independent article, but... practically nothing in this article is about the flag. It's almost all about the background of the flag's creators and some events that happened contemporaneously with the flag's usage. The cited source, [35], doesn't even sound sure that the banner was used during the events discussed: "This banner was probably created for Australia’s first ‘national’ political elections held on 15 June 1843." (Of course, maybe they mean it was potentially created earlier.) A decent amount of the article seems like it'd really have a better home at 1843 New South Wales colonial election, and then prominently link that, perhaps? SnowFire (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • SnowFire The source further down has several mentions of the banner and the 1843 election, and the former's use during the latter. I previously cited two sources on this nomination. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Fair enough. I'm... still not sure that this information isn't really better treated elsewhere, or that the statement in the lede that "The banner is notable for its role in early Australian electoral democracy" is fully supported by the text. Again, it's good content, it's great to be on Wikipedia somewhere, but with the exception of the "Legacy" section, it really seems like the article is actually about 1843 New South Wales colonial election, Sydney. The flag was present during these riots, sure, but I'm not sure it was really the focus - presumably the rioters ire was aimed at Wentworth and Bland personally, not merely their flag. (But yes, this is DYKN, not RM. But I'd consider refactoring or moving the article on the above grounds, or else having more content on the flag - the "Legacy" section has some, but it's just two sentences.) SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]