Template talk:Did you know

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

There are currently 7 filled queues – all good!

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
On the Main Page
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.
"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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
January 3 2 1
January 4 1
January 9 1 1
January 15 1
January 17 1
January 20 1
January 25 1
January 27 1
January 29 1
January 30 3 1
January 31 3
February 3 2
February 4 3 1
February 7 1
February 9 1
February 12 2
February 14 1
February 16 1
February 17 1
February 18 1
February 19 2
February 20 2
February 22 4 1
February 23 2
February 24 4 2
February 25 3
February 26 2
February 27 1
February 28 2
March 1 2
March 2 1
March 3 5 3
March 4 3 3
March 5 3
March 6 4 1
March 7 7 3
March 8 4 1
March 9 3 1
March 10 2 2
March 11 1
March 12 4 2
March 13 3
March 14 8 4
March 15 5 2
March 16 3
March 17 9 5
March 18 6 2
March 19 4 2
March 20 11 5
March 21 4 1
March 22 6 2
March 23 4 2
March 24 9 5
March 25 8 3
March 26 8 3
March 27 6 2
March 28 5 1
March 29 1
Total 190 62
Last updated 20:28, 29 March 2023 UTC
Current time is 20:28, 29 March 2023 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Shortcut

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[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]

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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: Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg.
  2. Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
    • Any outstanding issue following Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg 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 January 3[edit]

Buchanan's Station

(
)
c.1936 view of site; log building on the right is a remnant of the 1780s fort.[1]
c.1936 view of site; log building on the right is a remnant of the 1780s fort.[1]

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

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

@Lajmmoore: These concerns have been addressed, Thank you. GenQuest "scribble" 16:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lajmmoore: Please let me know what more is needed to pass this? Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 00:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GenQuest: thanks for the reminder, caption and editing request are fulfilled Lajmmoore (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Could you please take a quick look at this article from a WikiProject Military History point of view? First of all, is it misnamed per WikiProject convention (i.e., should it be "Battle of Buchanan's Station" or similar)? Any other adjustments needed to conform to basic MH standards? (Thought of Kevin1776 because of Tecumseh but seems to be offline these days.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is fine. I have reassessed it as B class. The article naming seems okay. I don't know much about the place/period. @Hog Farm: might know more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name is fine, since the article discusses the stockade itself besides just the battle that took place there. Ideally there'd be some coverage of the period between the battle and whenever the stockade was abandoned in the article, but that's not always covered by sources. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to dig into this article or sources for it much. Hog Farm Talk 07:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added additional information to the article to address the period between the battle and the sale of the property. Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 18:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Cielquiparle I believe all your objections have been met. Can this get passed now? GenQuest "scribble" 06:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is anyone looking at this anymore? GenQuest "scribble" 18:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GenQuest: I'm having trouble verifying the claim that Talitoskee was leading the raid on Buchanan's Station. Which source says that? Cielquiparle (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cielquiparle I've removed the offending statement. GenQuest "scribble" 07:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks GenQuest! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @GenQuest: Upon further review, this article still needs more work. For example, the paragraph on John Buchanan arriving in 1780 with his nineteen-year-old wife isn't right (and it doesn't say that in the cited source at the end of paragraph either). I'm now working on the biography for Sally Buchanan which will hopefully help to clear up certain issues, but this is indeed a very challenging story to tell, as there is so much conflicting information (the time period and region make it difficult). I am committed to helping to get Buchanan's Station over the line as a co-author (not as a reviewer or promoter). I would also be open to a joint DYK submission with Sally Buchanan called out in the hook. Regardless, let's get all the facts in both articles fixed first. (I will be focusing on Sally's for the next couple of days, as I fully expect it will evolve significantly as I comb through and cross-reference each claim.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GenQuest: I think it's fine to seek a second opinion. I would just ask that the next reviewer please be sure to go through and verify each claim line by line, because there were a lot of problems previously, per the discussion above, with failed verification. I will also go through now and mark exactly where I am still finding conflicts. I am also happy to help fix these issues for you. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: You're looking at the wrong things, especially in an case for DYK. There is conflicting info, but it was cited info; and such details can be worked out on its way to a Good Article status. As long as the hooks are duly cited, and other criteria is met, and the rest isn't complete BS, that is what DYK is for. Quick and easy as in the past. These have been painful enough to put me off ever subjesting myself to this procedure again. I've reviewed at least eight or nine articles myself. I know how it works.
The pertinent criteria are:
The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article;
(Once again, that rule is only for the hook fact, not for every sentence in the article...)
The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.
If you want to go through and add new data, that's fine, but should not hold up the DYK process in the meantime. Thanks for your help, BTW. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GenQuest: It is true that DYK standards are probably more rigorous now than in the past, and that American history articles in particular are now subject to increased scrutiny. (See this Talk page which also includes a list of past DYKs that were found to be invalid.) Having now reviewed this article in-depth, I think the main source of the problem was the overreliance on the Nashville Historical Newsletter, which provides a pretty good outline, but the whole story about the Battle of Buchanan Station made a lot more sense to me once I started reading more of the secondary sources cited in that article. Anyway I've now rewritten the entire battle section of the article, so I think we're ready for a fresh review. I will also propose some ALT hooks, as I don't think either ALT0 or ALT1 hold up; even NHN clearly states that the role played by the blunderbuss depends on whom you ask, and it's only one source (NHN) that describes the gunmen as "sharpshooters" which doesn't really make sense if they were using a combination of rifles, muskets, and a blunderbuss. (Side note re: Tecumseh – It's true that Sugden says that young Tecumseh was present during the battle, but this appears to have been a highly controversial claim for quite some time, so if we mention him I think we need to qualify it as such.) In any case, this is a hugely important addition to Wikipedia, and it's just one of those things – certain topics are more challenging and require more time and effort than others.

References

  1. ^ referenced
Proposing new ALT hooks:
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs a full review in light of significant changes to the article, plus new ALT hooks. Hooks might need workshopping, etc., but article itself is now in much better shape. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take on the re-review here. Skimmed the article content, which looks fine (although I'd recommend avoiding the use of "Indian" and going with "Native American" instead). Hooks look fine from a first glance. QPQ is done. My primary concern at the moment is that HMDB is not a reliable source. A bit more to follow - will perform some basic source-text and copyvio checks this evening. Hog Farm Talk 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. I am the one who swapped in HMDB, mainly to swap this blogspot photo as a source, which seemed far worse. The point is that the historical marker itself was being referenced as a source, and as we all know, they aren't always correct, so I'll search for a better source and replace it. I think I've now mostly removed the few instances of Indian but left Northwest Indian Wars. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GenQuest and Hog Farm: I have now removed the entire section referring to the Buchanan Log House, which had nothing to do with Buchanan's Station. The Buchanan Log House, referred to in the historical marker, was built by James Buchanan, son of Archibald and Agnes Buchanan of Clover Bottom – not Major John Buchanan of Buchanan's Station. See the Buchanan Log House website under "Myths & Mysteries". Cielquiparle (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg @GenQuest and Cielquiparle: - I'm having some trouble figuring out how the citations align. "John Buchanan first came to the Washington District in early 1780, settling in the vicinity of Fort Nashboro. Buchanan left Fort Nashboro with a large party in the spring of 1784 [...] . It was situated between Mill Creek and what later became the Buchanan Mill Road" is apparently sourced to "Buchanan’s Station and Cemetery; WebPage; Nashville Historical Newsletter online; retrieved December 2022", but I'm not finding any reference to the Washington District, Fort Nashboro, or Buchanan Mill Road on that webpage? I'm not entirely for sure what DYK's stance on source-text integrity is, but after WP:DCGAR I've been trying to spot-check everything I review. Pinging Theleekycauldron as the resident rules expert. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hog Farm: all of the facts mentioned in the hook need to be sourced at the end of the sentence in their respective places in (at least one if there are multiple) the bolded article – that sourcing needs to be checked and verified to make sure the hook is accurate. By all means, please get any discrepancies cleared up :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will fix it. I was trying not to rewrite the entire article, so I focused on the Battle section and added "Early hostilities" which already seemed like a lot, but given all the issues, I can fix the rest too. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 4[edit]

Northeastern Army

(
)
Chiang Kai-shek and Northeastern General Zhang Xueliang
Chiang Kai-shek and Northeastern General Zhang Xueliang

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @SilverStar54: Good article. However

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

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

Hopefully this is the right spot to respond (first time in the DYK process), but thank you for the quick review. I've revised the article to add sources (or remove unsourced material) where you requested. Let me know if there's any further steps I should take. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol voting keep.svg Forgot to promote. Hope to see more expansions about the warlord era. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilverStar54: Symbol question.svg could you point as to where in the article we're going with "kidnapping", rather than detainment? Also, where could I find the bit about convincing him to join the second united front? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I feel that either term could be used to describe the events, I chose "kidnapping" just because it's more eye-catching for a hook. Do you feel like that's too much of a creative liberty? About the Second United Front, thank you for pointing that out. I describe it, but I never actually included a link to the Second United Front in that section (fixed now). It's what I'm describing in these two sentences: "By the end of the negotiations, Chiang had verbally promised to end the civil war, to resist the Japanese together, and to invite Zhou to Nanjing for further talks. Although he publicly renounced his promises after being released, he quietly followed through on them over the following months." I think that more detail about the Second United Front would be tangential to the article, but I could add more about the negotiations. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilverStar54: I'd say that "kidnapping" probably has connotations we couldn't back up, but I could be wrong. When you say "join the Second United Front", you don't mean as a card-carrying member? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I guess I feel that "kidnapping" connotates illegally seizing a person, whereas "detaining" implies a legal or official action, such as by the police. This was done by an army, but their actions were perceived as illegal (at least by the Nanjing government). Perhaps "took hostage" works better?
I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "as a card-carrying member". The Second United Front wasn't a political party that you could be a member of, it was just an alliance between the CCP and the KMT to resist the Japanese. Chiang denied that he was bound by his verbal promise to create such an alliance after he was released, but gradually eased hostilities and eventually did sign an official alliance with the Communists after six months of continued negotiations. For political reasons the KMT framed this as a "surrender" by the CCP, but in reality it was an alliance. I'll try to rewrite that section to make it more clear. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if they want any changes or not. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilverStar54: the clarifying changes for that section would be welcome :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Just made some more edits. Please take a look at my most recent revision and let me know what parts still need more detail or clarification. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilverStar54: forgive me, my head's been swimming recently – could you point me to the sentences in the article that support the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: The section on the Xi'an Incident, specifically the second paragraph:
"In November 1936, Zhang asked Chiang to come to Xi'an to raise the morale of troops unwilling to fight the Communists. When he arrived, Northeastern soldiers overwhelmed his bodyguard and placed him under house arrest. A faction of the army led by Yang Hucheng and the radical young officers of the "Anti-Japanese Comrade Society" wanted to execute Chiang, but Zhang and the Communists insisted that he be kept alive and convinced to change his policy towards Japan and the Communists. They argued that an alliance with Chiang was their best chance to combat the Japanese, while killing him would only provoke retaliation from the Nanjing Government. The Northeastern Army attempted to broadcast 8 demands to the Chinese public explaining why they arrested Chiang and the conditions for his release, but Nationalist censorship prevented their publication outside the Communist-held areas. Nonetheless, Chiang eventually agreed to negotiate with CCP diplomats Zhou Enlai and Lin Boqu. By late December Chiang had given a verbal promise that he would end the civil war and resist Japanese aggression."
As explained in the following paragraph, the alliance between the Communists and Nationalists against the Japanese became known as the Second United Front. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, okay. What about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT0a: ... that Nationalist China's own Northeastern Army captured Chiang Kai-shek (pictured) to convince him to help them fight the Japanese?
(edited) At first this looked good to me but I didn't realize you had also edited the second part of the sentence. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but "...to help them fight the Japanese" is both misleading and missing a big part of the story. It's misleading because "help" implies that the Northeastern Army is Chiang's ally, when in fact they were part of his army (is the head of state "helping" part of his army fight a war by declaring it?). It's also missing the critical demand that Chiang fight the Japanese by working with the Communists.SilverStar54 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, but where in the paragraph does it actually say that they wanted to convince Chiang to join the Second United Front? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I mentioned, the words "Second United Front" don't appear until the following paragraph:
"Chiang was released on 26 December and returned to Nanjing with Zhang Xueliang. [...] Chiang did eventually keep his promise to the CCP. After six months of continued negotiations, he signed a formal agreement creating the Second United Front, a military alliance of the Communists and Nationalists against Japan."
SilverStar54 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha, so is the originally hook accurate if the Second United Front didn't exist yet? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about "that Nationalist China's own Northeastern Army took Chiang Kai-shek (pictured) hostage to convince him to form the Second United Front?" SilverStar54 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 15[edit]

Sujudi

(
)

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

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough and long enough. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found in spotchecks (most are non-English anyway). QPQ is done. However, the hook as it stands will not work, it attributes a direct quote that is both a different wording to the one in the source, and which the source does not note as a direct quote. CMD (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Chipmunkdavis: how about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ALT0a: ... that Indonesian health minister Sujudi objected to the government's campaign to promote condom use?
    • "rejected" a "proposed plan" might work. CMD (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Jeromi Mikhael? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think ALT0a is ok. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • CMD, are there any more issues? Is this ready? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Alt0a is as written incorrect. A reformulation may work but I don't think I should do that myself as the reviewer. CMD (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • @Chipmunkdavis: I'm not sure what you mean; nothing I can see in the Guardian piece explicitly says that Sujudi used his government authority to kill the plan. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • The way I interpret the Guardian article aligns with the article text, "There were suggestions to initiate a government campaign of condom usage", rather than there being a plan. I did a bit of digging, the information seems quite vague, but this source says that while there was a official position on condoms as early as 1996 among the health department it was not something that was really implemented. CMD (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 17[edit]

Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma

(
)

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

ALT2 ... that when he was rector of the University of Indonesia, Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma would commute via public transportation to the campus to listen to criticisms about the school?
I changed "train" to "public transportation" as the article doesn't specifically mention trains. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Review coming. Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutral and appears well cited (mostly in Indonesian). Copyedited as I read, but a few minor remaining questions for @Jeromi Mikhael: Is it appropriate to link "undergraduate medical degree" to Medical degree? Should "academician" (3x) be changed to "administrator"? What happened after the suspension saga - it seems unresolved? Added back the mention of train, so my preference for hook (also restoring "sometimes") would be:
Very close to approval. AGF on the since-deleted QPQ. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 20[edit]

Star Control

(
)
  • ... that Paul Reiche and Fred Ford created the 1990 space game Star Control by adapting the action-strategy gameplay from Reiche's 1983 game Archon into a science fiction setting? Source: "I wanna mention that, and it was obvious to us, because we intended it that way, but "Starchon" is really "Archon" with an S-T in front of it. "Archon" being a strategy game on top of a one-on-one combat game and that's what "Star Control I" was."[1]

"The first Star Control is actually somewhat similar in concept to one of Reiche III and Ford’s earlier games, Archon, in that it’s a strategy game where conflict is resolved via action-based one-on-one combat. (It could even be termed a spiritual successor, given that it’s even in the title – “StAR CONtrol”.)"[2]

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

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

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

  • I'm open minded. I've done a few of these and I was starting to feel a little repetitive with "did you know that this was considered one of the best games because...?" I figured I would try to link it to another historic game, but I can see how that might be inaccessible to someone who isn't into games. Let me know what you think, and I'll come up with something either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very sorry for leaving you hanging, my friend. Let me jump back into this DYK tomorrow. Been slammed with work, but things are lightening up again. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Shooterwalker: The article itself is tip-top. I just think the hook is a little staid and wouldn't be rewarding for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I would offer my own ALTs, but don't want to disqualify myself as reviewer by doing so. That said, there is a lot of material in this article that could be mined for appealing ALTs. For example, this passage alone seems like it could generate two very effective ALTs: "When they saw that the Syreen ship resembled a cross between a rocket ship and a ribbed condom, Fred Ford suggested calling it the Syreen Penetrator, which coincidentally happened moments before the 1989 San Francisco Earthquake." —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for being MIA again. Was out of town, then got caught up in other articles I've been working on. Your revised ALT is better, but it still needs a bit of work. I would trim down the overlinking of well-known things and maybe remove the reference to the Loma Prieta quake. Ideally the ALT would focus either on the unusual appearance of the starship or the timing of its naming, but not both as it might be a bit much. Feel free to ping me. I'll be able to respond in a timelier fashion now that I have more time. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT2 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control designed a starship for an all-female alien race, naming it the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom?
ALT3 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control named a starship the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom, moments before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake?
@CurryTime7-24: Having trouble deciding so I gave each one a try. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg @Shooterwalker: Both ALTs are wonderful! Thank you for your patience with me and for your excellent work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg This needs more work, as I've checked the sources cited in the article, and they do not exactly verify the specific claims made in ALT2 and ALT3 (and in the sentences where they are cited in the article). Pinging CurryTime7-24. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on January 25[edit]

Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra

(
)
  • ... that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra was founded at İzmir in 2015 after an example in Venezuela to educate music for children with limited opportunities and to keep them away from crime? Source: "İzmir'de dar gelirli ailelerin çocuklarının suçtan uzak kalmasını sağlamak amacıyla 2015'te ilk adımları atılan Barış Çocuk Senfoni Orkestrası ..." , "Venezuela'nın başkenti Karacas'ın dezavantajlı bölgelerinde yürütülen "El Sistema" projesini örnek aldıklarını ..." (in Turkish) [3]

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

  • Symbol delete vote.svg I have concerns. First off, usual disclaimer that Wikipedia's coverage of "local" topics can be woefully lacking, especially local topics in areas without much English-language media. So your work expanding that area is genuinely appreciated. That said...
  • I don't know Turkish. However, some of this article doesn't seem to be accurate or proportionate interpretations of the sources. For example, Kadifekale is linked, and nom added a section to that article on the youth orchestra. But the Wikipedia article and the newspaper source are obviously not talking about the same thing - the Wikipedia article is talking about a historic ruined castle, while the newspaper article seems to refer to it as a troubled neighborhood. I recognize that the neighborhood is probably named after the castle (or they're both named after the same thing), but the point remains, it's off-topic. The same is true of Agora of Smyrna, where the linked article is a heritage site and not a neighborhood. But more generally, even if there was a neighborhood to link, it's literally one word in the sourced newspaper article, with no context or explanations. I don't think it's due weight to copy it over here. More generally, I'm inclined to think that this article is much too long. It's including trivial details like specific grants from the webpage of a non-profit (Sivil Toplum Destek Vakfi), which just isn't Wikipedia-relevant: we should be using secondary sources. Most of the newspaper articles are short and inconsequential. The longest newspaper article is still a bit of a "culture beat" filler-type article about some local organization, and while I'm not one of them, certainly some Wikipedians would probably call this a WP:NOTNEWS violation for expanding a common newspaper story into a Wikipedia article. I'm not saying the article should go to AFD, but I do think if cleaned up, the article would be 4 sentences long, and essentially say that the Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra is a local orchestra in Izmir, skipping out on all the news/PR type material. Such a cleaned-up article would then fail DYK length requirements. I'm inclined to think that the article needs some more substantive sources than what it has currently to qualify on grounds of verifiability and length. (But happy to help if such sources are found!) SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • theleekycauldron The point is that for the founding of the orchestra in Turkey, the example in Venezuela has been taken, where children are kept away from crime through music. The military music is irrelevant. I don't know how do you come on this argument. CeeGee 05:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Shorter hooks are more memorable. The part about keeping kids away from crime is the feel-good "meal" for people who click the article to read it. The DYK hook is just the interesting part, it's a teaser, and the closest to a teaser is an interesting juxtaposition between Venezuela & Turkey. The less distracting parts, the better.
  • If someone else wants to review the DYK, they're free too - I made some minor edits for clarity and concision. I would probably cut it down even further if I full followed my preferences per above, but tried to keep it to non-controversial stuff. SnowFire (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SnowFire I appreciate very much your edits in the article. However, I don't agree with the Alt-hook at all. If you wish to transfer the DYK-nom to someone else, you can use the "DYK?again" tick. CeeGee 05:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it stands, SnowFire, this nomination is marked for closure. Are the issues irreparably prohibitive for DYK purposes? Iff so, CeeGee, do you agree? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg In my opinion this is still too minor for DYK but then I believe that DYK should have somewhat stricter standards than others. That said, I'll let someone else take a fresh look if desired.
On the hook comment, I still believe my ALT1 is better than the original hook if there's a desire to run this after all. I get it that it doesn't include the "keep kids away from crime" part but DYK hooks have to be interesting and "punchy". The content of the article will fill readers in on the crime-prevention aspect. Concise hooks are also much better than long ones, so restricting to the one, most interesting thing helps. SnowFire (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CeeGee: I have now read this article and tend to agree that it is missing a little "something" that would make it more compelling for DYK purposes. As a regular at both DYK and AfD, I would say it probably would survive AfD, but the article as it stands now would still trigger a lot of people with a similar reaction to SnowFire (e.g. "Lots of places have music programs for underprivileged children...what is so special about this one?" and "This is so local!"). That said, if there is any secondary source commenting on the significance of the program (e.g. "compared to other similar programs in other countries, Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra is distinctive because X, Y and Z" or "what is striking about Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra is ABC") we could possibly refer to that in the hook and/or in the article. But at the moment it feels a bit thin. I know it's disappointing, but unfortunately not every single article we work on is suitable for DYK, even if it is for a noble cause. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 27[edit]

Untitled Goose Game

(
)

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

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - not for the first hook.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @MyCatIsAChonk: Good article. But I'm not seeing the first hook be supported by the source. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC) @Onegreatjoke: The lead section is not cited, but the fact is mentioned down in under "Development and release": The game originated from a stock photograph of a goose that an employee posted in the company's internal communications, which sparked a conversation about geese. The citation is for a Tweet from the lead game dev at House House (the company that made Untitled Goose Game).Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Are there any other changes you'd like me to make? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the previous reviewer hasn't responded for a few days, I'm going to give it the holy tick. Symbol confirmed.svg I prefer the ALT2. BorgQueen (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BorgQueen: Now that I think about it, this has some seriously good potential for an April Fools hook. If it's not too late in the game, here are some proposals:
ALT3: ... that geese make good protagonists?
Source and context: The protagonist of the game is a goose; the idea came from a stock photo of a goose posted in the game dev's Slack chat. Source is a Tweet by a dev at the company: https://twitter.com/mjmcmaster/status/763596145452912640.
ALT4: ... that Debussy is still hip?
Source and context: The music in the game is derived from a Debussy prelude. Verge article: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/23/20879792/untitled-goose-game-nintendo-switch-debussy
ALT5: ... that geese can be hitmen too?
Source and context: One of the games that was used as inspiration was the Hitman franchise for its targeted-mission style (as shown in the original ALTs). Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49852317
An image of a goose would make sense for 3 nd 5 (here's some possibilities: one and two). If it's not too late, I think this would be really great. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Amusing, sure, if you're willing to wait until April. BorgQueen (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BorgQueen: Would you mind moving it to the April Fools page? Is there a specific way I should do it? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Cielquiparle and Theleekycauldron: What do you guys think? BorgQueen (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @BorgQueen: we have lots of leeway on April Fools' Day for hooks, but stating jokes or quotes in wikivoice isn't usually something we screw around with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Theleekycauldron: Respectfully, I don't feel that any of the April Fools' ALTs are twisting quotes; the only one that could possibly be close to that is ALT5, but that's a generalized statement in the article, not a quote. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The issue isn't that we're twisting the quote, MyCatIsAChonk, it's that we're repeating a quote without saying it's a quote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC) hey, my apologies for being curt. I was frustrated about something in the meatspace, and it's totally not fair that I radiated that out here. if we could find another quirky part of such a funky game, that'd be great :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • @Theleekycauldron: It's all good; I've struck through the ALT0 through ALT2 because they're not April Fools' hooks, and ALT5 because of the quote issue. ALT3 and ALT4 are spinning the nature of the game. Personally, I prefer ALT4, but I do realize that it's less about the game and more about the music of it. Thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

@Theleekycauldron: Comparing it to the criteria under WP:VOICE, ALT4 is not an opinion (while I don't consider it a fact, I believe it's a rephrasing of a fact, the fact being that Debussy's music is still used today), it's not seriously contested, it's not a definite fact, not judgmental, and doesn't give undue weight to something. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg This DYK nomination needs a hook that can get approved. Not too late for April Fool's Day consideration but it has to pass. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Is there anything else you think should be changed? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "hip" means "cool"/"trendy" more than it means "current", the latter being more tonally charged. So, unfortunately, I stand by my dissatisfaction with ALT4 unfortunately, but let me see if I can't scare up a hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really tortured, but:
I think this would be a standard quirky hook, rather than an AFDay. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: At this point I'd just like it to get on the main page, so yeah, that's good. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 29[edit]

Lovely's Purchase

(
)
  • ... that President James Monroe had promised an exclusive "... gateway to the setting sun ... where they were not surrounded by the White man" to the eastern Cherokee that resulted in the creation of Lovely's Purchase? Source: Gabler, Ina (1960). "Lovely's Purchase and Lovely County". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 19 (1): 31–39. doi:10.2307/40038035. ISSN 0004-1823. JSTOR 40038035.

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

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

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @GenQuest: Good article, but I can't seem to find the first hook anywhere in the article.

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

Symbol confirmed.svg I see Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added and additional ALT that I think reads better than the first. GenQuest "scribble" 18:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GenQuest: I wanted to promote this but was wondering why the last sentence of the "Major Lovely" paragraph didn't have a citation...thought it was probably an easy fix...then found that I can't seem to find a source referring to Lovely's multi-step purchase starting in 1813? I don't doubt that it exists somewhere, but I'm not seeing it in the Agnew article, in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, or Muskogee Phoenix. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I fixed the confusion and mixed-up dates. Thanks for pointing it out. GenQuest "scribble" 21:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GenQuest I haven't had a chance to re-review the article line by line, as that would take some time, but I haven't blocked it from being promoted either, so if it looks ok to another editor, it could still get promoted by someone else in the meantime. (Regardless, it generally takes a long time for hooks to get promoted, unless the hook is so amazing that everyone is clamoring to promote it first.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg My general feeling is that this article is in better shape than the other one (on Buchanan's Station), following the fixes mentioned above which hopefully resolved the failed verification and missing citation issues. I would also appreciate another reviewer to look at this closely, and provide a green tick mark if it looks ok. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 30[edit]

Airis Computer

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

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

  • Symbol question.svg @DigitalIceAge: Firstly, it's been a week since the nomination, so a QPQ must be provided as soon as possible for the nomination to pass. Secondly, the hook seems to require specialist knowledge: it requires readers to know that modem connections and computer updates via such technologies was still new in 1991. Maybe something less specialist can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Narutolovehinata5: Apologies for the absence of QPQ, got majorly sidetracked on here. Perhaps:
    • DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I suppose ALT1 works (ALT2 is also a decent hook but I think ALT1 is more unusual). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I do have a minor concern with the article: maybe the sentence The product was met with a number of delays, and Airis fizzled before the company could sell many (or any) units of the laptop. can be rewritten? I'm not sure if "fizzled" is an encyclopedic term, and so is the use of "(or any)". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. However, now that I think about it, I wounder if that part should be rewritten entirely; rereading the article, the claim that none were sold was never confirmed, but a claim by two separate publications. Maybe the lede should be modified to reflect that it was a claim? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if MOS:CLAIM applies or not, but I have reworded the last couple of sentences in the lede to reflect the uncertainty. Thanks for the suggestion @Narutolovehinata5:. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That part just needs a few minor grammar-related copyedits and this will be ready for a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; if grammar-related copyedits are still needed, they can be noted as part of the full review. Ping to nominator DigitalIceAge. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol question.svg While the article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been done, and while ALT1 (my preferred hook) is cited inline (and verified in the sources), I do have some concerns with the article. Apart from the earlier-mentioned need for a copyedit, I also note that the claim that the company folded in 1993 is only mentioned in the lede and the infobox, and is not mentioned in the body. It also lacks a reference. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again for the review @Narutolovehinata5: I have given the article a copyedit and removed the semicolon between the clauses of the hook fact sentence to make it directly cited. I also tweaked the wording wrt the defunct date to be less definitive. Let me know if any other tweaks need to be made. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1993 date still needs to be mentioned in the body, preferably with a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Found a source that confirms the 1993 date of defunctness, now included in the body. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

(
)

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

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

  •  Not done. What's the point of chasing an arbitrary number when it doesn't reflect the true state of the article? Most of the "flagged" passages on Earwig are just the album title. There are a handful of quotes I used, (which are properly shown as quotes and clearly not copyvio) but I don't think anything I did is violating a Wikipedia policy; point me to one if I'm wrong. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @PerfectSoundWhatever: Apologies for not pinging you as well! This isn't a policy violation as you indicated that the quotes are directly coming from Elverum. I did notice that the album title appears four times, however I still think that some of the quotes could be paraphrased as copyvio flags the source as being in the yellow area. Sebbirrrr (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sebbirrrr: Can you look at this again because it doesn't really look like there's any copyvio issues anymore. Most copyvio flags are just names of the album and a place. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on January 31[edit]

Powell Marsh Wildlife Area

(
)
Trumpeter swans landing on the Vista Flowage
Trumpeter swans landing on the Vista Flowage

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

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow, but I'm not really a fan of either hook. The second just isn't intriguing in a "hooky" way, while the first hook seems a bit technical; in particular, it mentions "flocs", which is a term readers may not know. Perhaps different hooks can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that the second hook is not the best, perhaps the third one is a bit better? I think it's a bit less technical and gets the point across in a hookier way. Thank you for your time. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ALT2 is okay, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned in the article? The water becoming polluted that is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Heeps of Wiki: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apologies for the late response, I didn't get a ping for this page for some reason. In the referenced article, there is this quote: Lake proponents say the water pressure in the manufactured wetland forces groundwater, rich in iron, into Dead Pike Lake. Rip out the infrastructure, return the marsh to its natural form, and Dead Pike Lake will be saved, they say. “This lake represents an opportunity for people to get a sense of what a pristine northern Wisconsin lake still can look like. But they’re polluting it,” said Wolf. “Our own Department of Natural Resources has contributed significantly to environmental damage and to the loss of property rights for the citizenry that’s here.” Heeps of Wiki (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, but the article doesn't seem to have been edited in a while and my original concern remains unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article hasn't been updated in a while because I am not sure what to fix. I misconstrued your earlier comment which asked where the statement was in the article, I assumed you meant in the reference. But either way, in the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area article, there is prose in the Dead Pike Lake section that I feel adequately mentions the polluting of the water, and the source of said pollution. If this does not assuage your concerns, let me know how I can best rectify the problem. I would also love to hear some other feedback for the article. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I apologize for that. I got confused by the article since I was looking for which downstream lake exactly was being polluted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All good, do you think it would be helpful to name the lake being polluted? I wasn't sure if I should as I wanted to try to be concise. Heeps of Wiki (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North Carolina Council of State

(
)

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

  • Began reviewing for DYK

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

QPQ was Bernard Rwehururu.


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - n
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgreason (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2023 February 14 (UTC) Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 21:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol question.svg Adding query tag as ALT1 needs to be independently approved. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Actually, this needs a new reviewer to approve ALT1. I have adjusted the DYK checklist to reflect the fact that the original hook was not considered to be interesting, and changed the status therein accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think "holdover" is really a great way to describe the Council of State as it relates to history. Sure, the body originated in colonial governance (as did the office of governor and the office of secretary of state) but to call it a mere holdover I think dismisses it in a way I don't think accurately reflects what the sources say about this body. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ATL2 ... that Elaine Marshall is the first woman elected to the North Carolina Council of State in its 246-year existence? source — Maile (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Crew Motorfest

(
)
  • ... that The Crew Motorfest takes place in Oʻahu, the same place as the first two Test Drive Unlimited games which were previously worked on by some of the same developers? Source: [6] and [7]
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: If someone has any idea to word the hook better then feel free to tell me. Also, I'm including DecafPotato as an additional author since they helped me write a decent amount of this article.

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

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Newly created article about a video game. The article is long enough and sourced throughout. ALT0 is a bit confusing but makes sense when reading the article. It would have to be reworded to indicate what Ivory Tower is. I guess, instead of which were previously worked on by the director of Ivory Tower?, say which were previously worked on by the some of the same developers? QPQ is not needed as Blaze Wolf and DecafPotato have three DYK credits combined between them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Muboshgu: I like that. Sounds much better to me. Feel free to use that. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg We aren't allowed to request DYK dates based on commercial releases, but in the case of this "upcoming" video game, it would be helpful to know when the game will finally be published, because at the moment this article is mainly written in future tense and relies too heavily on the vendor as a source, making it arguably too WP:PROMOTIONAL. Once the game is released, there will be reviews and more independent secondary sources we will be able to cite in the article. In any case I'm uncomfortable with this article going to the main page as is, but perhaps this can all be rectified in the near future. Cc: @Blaze Wolf, DecafPotato, and Muboshgu: Do we know? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Hello Ciel! I was somehow not notified of your ping. As far as I'm aware a release date for the game is not known, however the game not being released yet hasn't been an issue before. WP:PROMOTIONAL isn't a concern as far as I'm aware as long as the article and DYK hooks are neutrally worded, which they are. Take Need for Speed Unbound for example, it was unreleased when it was promoted to the main page (albeit the release date was known at that point). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: Would you consider withdrawing this nomination for now and re-submitting this article after the product is released and reviewed, and the article reaches GA? At the moment, the article relies too heavily on the vendor as the main source for information (which is frowned upon for example at AfD), plus rumor and speculation, which triggers WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RUMOR. In any case, I can't support promoting this article to the main page at this time, but I would be happy to take another look once the product is released; otherwise it is just one of many games under development and could turn out to be vaporware (although it seems unlikely). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I would much rather not withdraw the nomination. I put a pretty decent amount of time into this article and I'd much rather not have it be wasted just because the game is unreleased. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: I just wanted to say, the time and effort you put in to the article is appreciated, and I wouldn't consider it "wasted" if it didn't run on DYK prior to product release. As I was saying before, the article would still be eligible for nomination when it reaches GA. (But side note: It cannot run twice at DYK.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle: It honestly feels like you don't want to approve it solely because the game isn't released yet, despite that not being something that would hold back a DYK considering I got a DYK for another article I created, Need for Speed Unbound, before the game released. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: Exactly. Personally I don't feel like defending this one all the way to the main page if/when we get complaints. But there may very well be other editors who are willing to, so let's leave it to them to review, approve, promote, and send to Queue. If I thought it was an outright fail, I would have rejected it. This one to me seems borderline; I still say the article would have been stronger and better timed once the product was available. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another side note is that just because an article was approved for DYK previously, doesn't always mean it was the right decision. We do sometimes get it wrong. If a major problem is found, the article can get pulled from the main page, which is always unfortunate. The standards have also seem to have changed a lot over the years. I think it's important to look at each article on a case-by-case basis, just like we would at AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Need a new reviewer to restore green tick. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 3[edit]

No More the Fool

(
)

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

  • Symbol question.svg Not really a big fan of the hook since it is reliant on names that not be familiar to all readers (for what it's worth, I do know who Wilde is thanks to Kids in America, but I can't assure that most readers are familiar with her). Can a different angle be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I will expand the article tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and will try to find another interesting fact about the song to use for the DYK. The problem is that I could find only one book that I could use. And there isn't much in it that I haven't already put into the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moscow Connection: Okay. Just note here on the nomination page once those have been accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Moscow Connection: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Tomorrow, I promise. Sorry for the delay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Narutolovehinata5: Could you maybe propose something else as a hook?
      I think that he current hook is interesting. And I can't think of anything better.
      Btw, I've been trying to find more sources to use, but I can't find anything. And I couldn't find a single source that would say what the song was about. I even tried searching for a source saying this song was a ballad (it is ballad, isn't it?), and nothing.
      I can ask for help at the music project talk page, maybe they will be able to find something. And to come up with a better hook.--Moscow Connection (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to be frank here: with the current content, I don't think the article is a right fit for DYK. There's not much in the article that seems to be intriguing to a non-specialist audience, especially if readers don't know who either name is (I personally only recognize Wilde). Looking at the article again, I think the only possible option that could still be used might revolve around this particular part: "I’ve been writing this song for Kim Wilde," said Ballard and showed them "No More the Fool". Brook's husband and Mike Heap were instantly "blown away". "That’s it!," said Jordan when Ballard stopped singing. "But I’ve written this for Kim Wilde," said Ballard protestingly. "No you haven’t. You’ve written it for Elkie Brooks," replied Jordan. Basically, a rewording of the original hook, but with more emphasis on the quote and Ballard's protest. But otherwise, I'm also out of ideas. In any case, the article does meet the technical DYK requirements including a lack of paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been done. I'll assume good faith on the sourcing as I can't access the sources. The article is technically eligible for DYK, but its lack of a suitable hook (proposed or possible) is the sticking point here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Yes, some pages are omitted from the Google Books preview. But you can try googling „"Finding My Voice: My Autobiography" site:idoc.pub“. And maybe, just maybe, you'll find something. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll just ask for help at the music project. The song is very famous and it's a pity I wasn't able to find more information about it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have asked for help here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Any help appreciated at Template:Did you know nominations/No More the Fool. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's getting warmer, but I think the "protested" wording like in the quote would make it more intriguing regardless of reader familiarity with the names involved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mosaic of Rehob

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

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

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - n
QPQ: Done.

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

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

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

@Davidbena: I might have confused you but that's not what I'm asking. I'm mainly asking you to make your hooks more specific and do add some links to other wikipedia pages not to do a whole other nomination. Like for example, something like this.
  • "... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?"
Though if we are going to work with this hook, there are two minor problems I kind of have with it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's also fine. Can I empower you to help me with this? Your suggestions are good, and since I have never done this before, you seem to be better fit to fix all the small problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davidbena: Here's my two problems.
  • It says "in any mosaic in the region" but what region? I can't tell if you mean the palestine region, the holy land, or some other region I don't know about.
  • The hook needs to be stated in the article, not just the lead, with an inline citation. I might be dumb but I can't see these mentioned in the article at all other than the lead.
These are generally pretty easy to fix and answer so I hope to see them done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The obvious answer to that is "... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any Hebrew mosaic in Palestine." I will make the correction now in the main article, and I'll find a way to incorporate the text, besides in the lead, also somewhere else.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke:, At your directives, I have just now amended the text to read "...in Palestine," instead of "in the region," and I have also repeated the claim that it is the largest Hebrew mosaic found in Israel, with a source, in the section entitled "Description of mosaic".Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Alright that's pretty much it. Now, since the hook we worked on was technically my hook, I'm going have to give this review to someone else since i'm not allowed to review my own hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That should be fine. Good luck!Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

@Davidbena and Onegreatjoke: BuySomeApples (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BuySomeApples: How about "... that the Mosaic of Rehob is the oldest known Talmudic text?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 4[edit]

Sara Gadalla Gubara

(
)

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

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

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

article:     Her documentary film The Lover of Light (2004) is both a metaphor for Gadalla Gubara and for his interest in bringing social issues to light through filmmaking.
source:     Sara's film The Lover of Light (2004) is both a metaphor of Gadalla Gubara and of his interest in bringing social issues to light through filmmaking.
also, although there aren't many english sources, i picked one of them at random, and it doesn't seem to support the text for which it is cited. the source is used following a paragraph covering gadalla gubara's tertiary education, but the source doesn't seem to mention her tertiary education at all. i admittedly stopped checking sources after that. dying (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dying:, the sentence was taken from Cinema of Sudan (before ref 23). I have now rephrased it. Reference 19, was also copied over from the lede of Gadalla Gubara, ref. 2 (also indicated in the edit). I should have checked, and sorry for not doing that. I have now moved to where it belongs, near ref (26). It is now being replaced by Ref. 10, 6, and 19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyMagma (talk • contribs)
FuzzyMagma, that is good to know. thank you for clearing that up. (by the way, the title of the documentary should have remained in italics when you were rephrasing the sentence mentioned above, as placing the title in italics is not a personal decision, but a general english standard. more details regarding how wikipedia treats titles of works can be found at mos:title. Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unfortunately, i am now also worried about the quality of the sources provided. i decided to take a look at the arabic sources, and the first one i looked at, the sudaneseonline source, appears to be a message board, which is not a reliable source. depends on who wrote it? not all sources are BBC and NYT. I mentioned above who wrote it and why I think it can be seen as reliable. anyway can be removed if contested further FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
admittedly, i stopped looking at arabic sources after that. i also noticed that the article was originally translated from ar wikipedia. as i am not fluent in arabic, i cannot competently check for copyright violations or instances of close paraphrasing with regard to the arabic sources, which may have existed in the ar wikipedia article before you translated it. I am not sure casting doubts without an evidence is a good thing as it can be easily interrupted as assuming bad faith. Please either give evidence to your claims or refrain from being too hypothetical FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
due to these issues, i do not feel comfortable promoting this hook at this time. your opinion is noted, and again can be easily amended - at least the point were you provided a ground for doubts. anyhow there is already an endorsement and a DYK check above FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
anyone else is free to promote this hook if they are confident enough in the quality of the hook and the article, you did not mention anything about the hook itself in your argument, so I am not sure why now you are mentioning the quality of the hook FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
or request a more in-depth review if they believe it is warranted. i do want to see this article promoted, as i had initially looked over this nomination intending to promote it, but i don't think i am competent enough to give this nomination a proper review. dying (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dying: in-line response FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs further review by new reviewer per discussion above. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff Wrana

(
)

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

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - I think ALT1 might be partially incorrect; I'll explain why further down below.
QPQ: Done.

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

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: More specifically, I would suggest these kinds of hook:
ALT1b: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to survive breast cancer?
ALT1c: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer?
By the way, cancer biology is one of the subjects I'm currently studying at uni, so I'm not just doing a review, but you're also allowing me to have a review... : D Oltrepier (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: how's this going? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron:. I am so sorry, I am just seeing this review for the first time. My fault for not checking it. I am completely fine with any of Oltrepier's proposed hooks. Let me tweak the sentence in the article. Also, Oltrepier, that is so cool that you're studying cancer biology. I am in absolutely no way studying anything STEM related in uni right now so I was relying heavily on my own translations/understandings. Thank you for clarifying my error. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: No worries at all! And that's fine: I'm not mother-tongue in English, either, so I definitely understand there can be some issues with the translation and the interpretation of documents... But anyway, this is not a big deal. : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron: is this g2g? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT1b and ALT1c to see whether they can be approved. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: Symbol question.svg It looks like ALT1b and ALT1c make claims that require secondary sourcing in line with WP:MEDRS – I don't think that The Toronto Star is gonna cover it, but we're looking :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Oltrepier: As a reminder, ALT0 doesn't carry any MEDRS implications, if you'd like to approve it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Symbol question.svg I do think that ALT0 still is a biomedical statement. More generally, popular media or PR pieces from the researcher's institution (such as this one aren't really that reliable for priority-type statements about being the first to discover something. I'd like to see a citation from a medical source; it doesn't have to be peer reviewed but should be from a technical medicine-oriented publication or organization, more like this one. Or you can stick to a general statement about what kind of research he does. Also, male breast cancer is a thing, so the hooks should be rewritten to be gender-neutral. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • i'd personally say it's bio, not biomed, but i think you're right otherwise – i'd also want to see some kind of medrs-reliable secondary source that confirms. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): You're right, I should have addressed the need for more adequate sources, too... Luckily, though, I think I've found the original paper by Wrana and the rest of his team: here's the PubMed address, while this is the DOI link (which, unfortunately, is behind pay-wall). The journal that published the paper, Nature Biotechnology, is cited as a source both by the original Toronto Star link and a CBC article I've found by myself, and the respective dates match with one another, as well.
I also wanted to clarify that, as reported by both the aforementioned articles, the study only involved female patients. For example, the CBC wrote that "In this week's online issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology, Wrana and his colleagues say the system enables them to accurately predict in 82 per cent of more than 350 women studied whether the breast cancer would be fatal." I hope this will help solve the sourcing problem, but let me know if I missed anything else! Oltrepier (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:MEDRS, primary sources generally shouldn't be used for medical content – we'll need some kind of secondary MEDRS-compliant source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Do citations in other papers count towards the criteria? I was thinking about looking for those here. Oltrepier (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oltrepier: Yes, it's good to find a review that discusses his work, especially if it spends a few sentences or a paragraph on it. I'm not sure if you're conversant with Wikidata, but I recently made a query that will find all the papers that cite any paper by a specified author (in this case Wrana), and sorts them so that reviews are likely to be towards the top of the list. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): That's just amazing, thank you for the help! I found one good review via your tool, which you can find here on PubMed, or here for the full text (you actually have to look for "Taylor" as a reference, because that's the first name on the original author list). I've also made my own research through PubMed, and found at least two recent papers that cite and discuss the work: here's the first, while here comes the second. I hope they can all be useful! Maybe, should we add them to Wrana's own Wiki article, as well, in order to further justify the sentence? Oltrepier (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: Yes, please use those sources in the article wherever appropriate. It looks like the mentions are scattered sentences rather than a pargraph specifically discussing his work, but they still strengthen the article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) and Theleekycauldron: Right, I've just tried to integrate all of the aforementioned sources in the original article: let me know if it's good enough. I must address that, actually, the whole page might need more secondary sources, but at least we should have got this specific part covered now. Anyway, thank you so much for your kind help! (Also, if we're going to use the hooks I've proposed by myself, can someone else approve them for me, please?) Oltrepier (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 7[edit]

2023 South Ethiopia Region referendum

(
)

Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 07:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 South Ethiopia Region referendum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

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

An interesting question. We don't run political hooks before elections or similar, but the actual voting has passed. (Another issue perhaps is that if I had waited for the results it would be past the seven day mark, but that's DYK so here we are.) Hopefully timely results emerge on the predicted date and the article will be updated then. CMD (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the point that Elli raises – and I must say, I agree – is not one about promotionality, it's one about article integrity. Once the results are released and analyzed, the article is likely to need or poorly undergo a large spate of of editing, and it'll need a re-review then. Let's hold off on approval until the results are tallied. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Pinging Elli and theleekycauldron to see whether their concerns have been addressed by the updates. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gonna defer to Elli on that one, I think :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The final results seems pretty clear, despite one zone is still working through it, so if that is the concern I think this can go ahead now. Since my creation HapHaxion has gotten to the updates very fast, I'd like to request the promoter include them in the credits. I have inserted the code above. CMD (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 9[edit]

Mark Hunter (photographer)

(
)
Mark Hunter In 2007
Mark Hunter In 2007
  • ... that Mark Hunter, known as The Cobrasnake, started “one of the earliest and most impactful social photography sites” according to Vogue? Source: “ Hunter’s blog, which was one of the earliest and most impactful social photography sites of its kind, offered anyone with an internet connection unprecedented access into the blossoming hipster subculture: an intoxicating–and intoxicate” Vogue

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

  • Would it be possible for someone crop the image I included in the nomination? I think it’s great, but wouldn’t stand out on the front page as it is. Thriley (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg New (moved from draftspace Feb 9) and long enough. Mostly well written and sourced; some notes are below. Unable to load Earwig, but don't expect any issues there. QPQ present.
    Here are a few suggestions: The lede could use another sentence explaining what Hunter is known for, and move the birth date to just after "Mark Hunter". Add birth date and age to infobox. Fill in some bare link citations. Uncurl quotation marks. The sentence "It allowed anyone on the internet to have access" is hyperbolic; maybe put this in Vogue's voice (as in "Vogue argues that it allowed anyone on the internet to view ..." or similar). Some lingering q's: What did Hunter change the name of his website to? Relevance of the Kennedy paragraph? Why put one sentence about Hunter's book under its own heading?
    Not sure about the photo ... I see that it was uploaded by a new account (presumably Hunter), but it cannot be "Own work" because Hunter is the subject of the photo and not the photographer.
    The current hook doesn't grab me. My current thought is something zany like
but would love to hear any other suggestions. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Thriley: Hi, just checking in two weeks later. I realize I wrote a fairly long list of things to do. The only important ones for DYK are about neutrality and completeness - revising "It allowed anyone on the internet to have access ..." and clarifying a few things that are labeled "lingering q's" above. I can do any remaining copyediting after that. And please suggest a new hook, since I'm not supposed to approve one of my own. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I’m going to shortly fix up the article and come up with a new hook. Thriley (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Articles created/expanded on February 12[edit]

Women and bicycling in Islam

(
)
Fatma Aliye Topuz
Fatma Aliye Topuz

5x expanded by LegalSmeagolian (talk) and Bookku (talk). Nominated by Bookku (talk) at 17:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bicycling in Islam; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • The first DYK source is accessed by request from WP:REREQ quote is included in the article citation that shall help verification, rest of the 2 DYKs were accessed from Google books. Bookku (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @LegalSmeagolian and Bookku: Could you please explain how you arrived at 5x expansion? I am not able to replicate your calculations using the DYK tool, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. (If the article is eligible, I would like to have the article run on International Women's Day if possible...but I do have a few very specific comments about things to fix first.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Cielquiparle: Sorry I am not technical enough for exact counting. But we rescued article from AFD claims, renamed and almost WP:TNT new start over. In number of sentences terms we may have retained at the most five sentences from version prior to 7 Feb, We added almost 30 new sentences. If you do not count bibliography part then new sentences are 5 times. Bibliography too was added by me in December.
Since it is almost afresh I thought to present it over to this forum. we wish to respect rules and guidance. Bookku (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough (expansion began on February 7 and was submitted on February 12). Although the way in which the 5x expansion was calculated did not, strictly speaking, adhere to the rules, based on the explanation given above, I see that the "original" article had 620 characters (105 words) of "salvageable prose" and by February 12, it had expanded to 4,795 characters (777 words). (The article is now at 5,786 characters (948 words) of prose.) On this basis, we can say that the article is long enough (expanded more than 5 times), and I would just ask that next time, you read the rules and install the DYK check tool so there is no uncertainty or confusion. (Basically, it's cleaner to delete all the prose you are not planning to keep, the day before you start expanding.) The article is well sourced throughout, with inline citations, and a lot of care has gone into trying to maintain a detached and neutral tone about a very sensitive and controversial subject. Earwig says copyvio is unlikely, although I do have one immediate concern which I will explain below. The QPQ is done. ALT0 is OK. So what is left is to discuss the other hooks and address some related issues:
1) Please minimize the text quoted in Footnote 2 (the Raab chapter). It is too long and will raise flags down the line. I understand maybe you just included it to help the DYK reviewer, but we don't need it anymore, so please only include 2 to 3 key sentences at most.
2) ALT1 is not approved, as I was unable to verify this fact based on the source. While it's fine to just discard the hook if you don't want to fix it, the corresponding claim in the article still needs to be fixed. The original text (which is easily accessed through Wikipedia Library) says Follow the Women bike tour (followthewomen.com), from Beirut, Lebanon, to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem. The cyclists, whose ranks included women in long sleeves and head scarves, and women who'd learned to ride just to join the trip, rode with queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan as well as Syrian first lady Asma Akhras Al-Assad, crossed the Jordan River (which was neither deep nor wide, they reported), shared meals with locals and visited refugee camps... Many of the Arab women ended their ride early... The reason I object to the current wording of ALT1 is that it makes it sound like both Queen Rania and First Lady Asma al-Assad rode together all the way from Beirut to Bethlehem, when in fact, based on other sources it sounds like they probably only joined a portion of the ride, because as ride sponsors, they were also responsible for hosting and officially receiving the cyclists. I would advise either finding a reliable source that explains their role a bit more clearly and modifying the article accordingly, or simplifying the sentence in the article so that it sticks closer to what the "Pedaling for Peace" article actually says (that the Rania and Asma "rode with" the women, without implying they both rode with the women the whole way).
3) In ALT2, the word "powerful" sounds non-neutral in wikivoice, so it needs to be reworded somehow – e.g. simply striking the word "powerful" out, or using wording to make it clear that there is a specific scholar you are naming in the article who says it's a "powerful metaphor" (e.g. "is viewed as a powerful metaphor...").
If you could please address these issues ASAP, I am happy to approve the hook for DYK. Many thanks for your hard work in rethinking and reworking this insightful article following the AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Bookku:. (Also edited my own copy above.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cielquiparle Many thanks for valuable inputs. We shall ping you as we accomplish suggested improvements. Although Alt1 and Alt2 are not must- in the article and in DYKs too I have tried to present diversity across regions in Muslim women's cycling practices and there by avoiding stereotype.
1) I have trimmed ref note a bit, I am also contemplating to split in feminist view and orthodox view and look for further scope of trimming as required.
2) For Alt1 I shall request @LegalSmeagolian and Ipigott: to help out to avoid grammar mistakes from my side when article is soon about to go for DYK. I suppose for Alt1 more sources may be available in Jordan and Syrian Arabic news media, but availability of such sources shall take it's own time.
3) About Alt2 metaphor of cycle in photographs has been discussed by author Raab too but without using word metaphor. Besides both the movies have been explored favorably by multiple academic authors though I could not spare enough time on all of those. I am removing word 'powerful' from 'powerful metaphor' as of now as suggested. Idk if word 'substantial' will be enough for toning down.
Just now saving in bit of hurry. I shall work further a little while later.
Bookku (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bookku: Thanks for your response. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Approving ALT0, ALT1, and ALT2. The current wordings of both ALT1 and ALT2 have been amended slightly to address concerns raised earlier (ALT1 says "took part in" instead of "took"; the word "powerful" has been removed from ALT2). The direct quote in the footnote has been split and shortened (though it could be shortened more, it is better than before). Additional sources and content have been added re: the Follow the Women bike tour. Happy to have this promoted for International Women's Day (8 March 2023, Prep Area 1) if possible. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RoySmith, the link created by you seem to go some where else. I suppose that needs to be WT:DYK#Bicycling in Islam Bookku (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, my bad. The WT link is the correct one, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is just for record. I had discussed my views on some of the concerns expressed @ User talk:RoySmith#To clear the air. To be editorially neutral I will take their relevant concerns on article talk page for discussion after present round of article update by other users. Bookku (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by SecretName101 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Proposed new South Shore Line station in South Bend; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • The hook doesn't sound all that interesting to me. Perhaps you should mention how long the proposals have been going on for. The article mentions that there were plans to relocate the station since 2006, an environmental study in 2008, and a financial estimate in 2013. Perhaps:
ALT1: ... that the construction of a new station has been proposed in South Bend, Indiana for the South Shore Line since 2006? https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/next-stop-downtown-buttigieg-wants-south-shore-to-run-into/article_c56e5214-9907-5273-a286-7306e2b6ce0e.html
@PizzaKing13: We can do ALT2: "... that there have been many proposals for a new station at South Bend, Indiana for the South Shore Line since 2006? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT2 looks good to me. New enough GA, long enough, hook is interesting, neutral, sourced, no copyright vios. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 20:46, 28 February 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
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 06:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg @Onegreatjoke: Quite frankly this article seems WP:TOOSOON for publication on the main page, even if it would survive AfD. Maybe we could revisit as a "new" article for DYK when the station is [closer to being] finally built? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 14[edit]

Rufina Bazlova

(
)

Created by Zartesbitter (talk). Nominated by Paul2520 (talk) at 02:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rufina Bazlova; 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: Red XN - Inline citations needed
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Zartesbitter and Paul2520: So some problems. Firstly, The awards and exhibitions sections look to be mostly uncited and I would prefer citations for them. Second, the hooks mentioned need to have inline citations in the article which it doesn't look like it is. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have fixed the problems now. Zartesbitter (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: did Zartesbitter's work adequately resolve the issues you mentioned? = paul2520 💬 15:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 16[edit]

Phisuea Samut

(
)
The statue of Phisuea Samut in Ko Samet, Thailand
The statue of Phisuea Samut in Ko Samet, Thailand

Created by Taung Tan (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Phisuea Samut; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (but misplaced; it was created on 10 February and nominated on 16 February). Long enough. The prose section is mostly a summary of the legend about Phisuea Samut, and could gain from some context. It simply starts with "Legend tells the story" which seems an odd way to put it. What legend, told by whom, in what context? I think some background would be needed here. Also, I would remove the work "masterpiece" in the lead, unless possibly if you can show through sources that it is broadly considered a masterpiece by critics or in some other relevant way. "Mother Sea Butterfly" in bold should reasonably be placed in the lead, if I interpret the MOS correctly. The hook is supported by inline citations AGF, and the wording is fine. However I lack an inline source supporting the claim that it is an "ogress". QPQ perhaps done but the link is red, so please clarify this. So in all a few things to fix before I will take another look. Good luck! Yakikaki (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yakikaki Qpq has been completed and some errors have been corrected. Taung Tan (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Taung Tan. The QPQ is now done. However, you didn't really address my concerns above. I also have further ones: note 1 needs to be rephrased, I don't understand what it means. Is it the case that Phisuea Samut is called "Mother Sea Butterfly" because of a linguistic similarity between the word "butterfly" and "ghost" in Thai language? What do you mean by "(not an insect)"? Maybe you can elaborate? I also think you need to explain more clearly who erected the statues, and when. It is very vague the way it is written now, again some context would be useful. But perhaps the sources are vague on this point? In that case you could rephrase it as something like "At one point, statues started to be erected..." or some such. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 17[edit]

Balanica

(
)

Created by PajaBG (talk). Self-nominated at 19:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Balanica; 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: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @PajaBG: Good article but it doesn't look like the sources verify the hooks. Can you provide new sources or an exaplanation? Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

forgot to mention but there looks to also be lots of copyright issues. That will need to be addressed too. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Onegreatjoke:. Hook 1. Source [10], in its Discussion segment, names only Sima de los Huesos and Mauer as older (per maximal minimum range). Source [11], in the very first line says "Mala Balanica, koja krije tajne trećeg najstarijeg ljudskog fosila u Evropi...", meaning "Mala Balanica, which hides secrets of the third oldest human fossil in Europe...".
Hook 2. Source [12] in its segment Cultural connections in the Middle Paleolithic era, though they say, "Neanderthals or some other species". Source [13] cites University of Belgrade's Faculty of Philosophy's statement which basically says the same as the previous source, "neandertalci ili druge vrste ljudi" meaning "Neanderthals or other species of humans". Source [14], head of the Serbian team Dušan Mihajlović also talks about the connections and says the project, of which the Balanica caves survey is part of, is called ""Neanderthal and Early Modern Human interactions in the Central Balkans". So, maybe Hook 2 could add "early" before "modern humans". Also, the last source gives the range of this happening from 300,000 to 240,000, so maybe that can be added, too. I left both out due to the length issues.
It is hard to rewrite scientific texts into your own words, replacing every single word with its synonym. I do try it and spend a lot of time on it, but frankly, I don't really care about, however it is called here, copyright, plagiarism, etc. Despite being imperfect to the perfection, Wikipedia is world's Number 1 starting point for knowledge. So, if we cite some scientists, and properly reference them, with links to their papers and journals, what's the fuss? They should say thank you. For whom are they making discoveries? If that was the point of mentioned "copyright issues". Real, printed, general encyclopedias never referenced anything, maybe just had a general list of literature listed at the end. At least in my part of the world, they were there to spread knowledge. Plus, this is just DYK, I didn't nominate it for GA or something. Take care! PajaBG (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 18[edit]

The Day of Books and Roses

(
)
Book signing in Catalonia on the Day of Books and Roses
Book signing in Catalonia on the Day of Books and Roses

Created by Bridges2Information (talk). Self-nominated at 19:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Day of Books and Roses (Catalonia); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 19[edit]

Oscar Holmes

(
)

Created by Clarityfiend (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Oscar Holmes; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Clarityfiend: Good article. Though, what makes Black Past a reliable source? Also, I may be confused but does the article contradict with Jesse L. Brown, I may be dumb here. Minor comment that isn't DYK mandatory, "He was survived by his wife and their three[3] or four[5] children." should probably be rid of per WP:SURVIVEDBY. QPQ also needed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Have you read BlackPast.org? The Library of Congress and the New York Public Library reference librarians consider it reliable. As for SURVIVEDBY, that's a bit nitpicky, but okay. I'll rephrase it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Jesse Brown, the distinction appears to be due to the fact that Holmes was already a pilot when he enlisted, hence he didn't need flight training. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clarityfiend: Alright, I still need a QPQ though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: QPQ done. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aubri Esters

(
)

Created by Elttaruuu (talk). Self-nominated at 06:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Aubri Esters; 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:

QPQ: Question?
Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg @Elttaruuu: Thanks for contributing to DYK; your article needs some copy editing as the [earwig score] is exceeding the limit. RV (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you very much for the revision. It appears to be satisfactory to me, and I've marked it for review. RV (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 20[edit]

Destination (game)

(
)

5x expanded by MB190417 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Destination (game); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Comment. It wasn't the game that entered administration, rather, it was the publisher RTL Games that did so. Mindmatrix 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @MB190417: Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough. Not quite long enough though - the before version is 1458 chars, and it's currently around 4,230 (2.9x expansion, 7290 is the target). Possible additions: the Dragon's Den story, and the irony of her success after, might be expandable and interesting; a Reception section might be useful if possible; perhaps briefly describe some elements of gameplay variations in the most notable editions. Otherwise well written (I did small copyedits) and cited - the Amazon links seem fine, though WP:RSPAMAZON suggests just citing the product itself. No QPQ needed; first nomination. As implied above, new suggestions for hooks are welcome. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Hameltion, thank you so much for your review and helpful copyedits to the article. I'm very sorry not to have checked the expansion rate: that was silly of me; I had assumed I had easily expanded by 5x! The article should now meet eligibility at 7362 B (diff from your review), though further copyediting may be welcomed.
I've added further information across the history section, as well as a new paragraph on gameplay variations as you suggested. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much by way of a section on Reception, with surprisingly few comments in local newspapers that might have been expected to report on the launches of local editions (there were probably more sources 10 years ago when new versions of the game were being released, so I feel like we are constrained to a smaller pool!).
I wasn't sure how to interpret WP:RSPAMAZON for a board game, seeing as the guidance seems to have in mind printed sources such as books rather than products; for disclosure, I've cited Amazon as a source in the new paragraph on gameplay variations, specifically using information from the image of the gameplay manual for Destination Hogwarts. But I think this is still in-keeping with the spirit of WP:RSPAMAZON.
Once again, thank you so much for your review and copyedits, and I am sorry not to have been careful to check the expansion rate! _MB190417_ (talk)
@MB190417: No worries. Size approx. 7350+ now, the added material all looks good. Symbol question.svg Last thing basically is to propose one or more alternative hooks for me to sign off on. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks! Here are a few:
  • ALT1: ... that the publisher of Destination, a bestselling taxi-based board game, entered administration after the film release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was delayed by eight months?
  • ALT2: ... that Destination became Hamleys' bestselling board game three months after its investment pitch was rejected on television?
  • ALT3: ... that a BBC investigation on bank irresponsibility changed the fate of Destination, a bestselling taxi-inspired board game? _MB190417_ (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. These are better, but want something snappier (either revision or new). Also, in ALT1 it's not clear that the delay caused the legal action, and "administration" is not familiar in the US; ALT2 is smart but it seems the episode aired after the game came out, so maybe reword but keep the meaning; and ALT3 is fairly vague ("changed the fate"). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway

(
)

Created by Red-tailed hawk (talk). Self-nominated at 05:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article new and long enough - I would shorten the hook as it repeats some information in the body verbatim, but not a disqualifier. Copyvio not detected, hook interesting. QPQ done, and hook verified in source cited + mentioned in article. The two sources linked above isn't inline cited to the hook fact in article, but the existing one does so no issue there. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a quick comment, but the hook can be further shortened by converting the measurements into numerals. It's not that common to spell out compound fractions like that. Thus:
    ... that the completion of the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway will reduce typical travel time from Madagascar's capital to its largest port by between 5.5 and 7.5 hours?
    Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Works for me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Symbol possible vote.svg @Red-tailed hawk and Juxlos: Unfortunately this hook cannot run as is. At the moment, it sounds like Wikipedia is making a prediction in wikivoice about a highway that has not been completed yet. As we all know, large public infrastructure projects are often political footballs – governments and various parties often make claims about future expected benefits that don't always pan out. It's also possible that the highway will not be completed. I'm not even sure if it's ok to feature this article on the main page, given that it's about a highway that hasn't been built/isn't in operation yet, but at minimum the hook would need to be modified in some way. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would that the completion of the Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway will reduce typical travel time from Madagascar's capital to its largest port by between 5.5 and 7.5 hours, per Madagascar's government work better for you? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Formatting the hook above as ALT0b (with further tweaks to stay within the 200 character limit) and proposing a few other modifications:
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Need another editor to review and approve (or propose more ALT hooks). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 22[edit]

Quarterback (TV series)

(
)
Patrick Mahomes
Patrick Mahomes

Created by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Quarterback (TV series); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (just), long enough. Early spotchecks found no issues, however oddly enough it's the sentences relating to hook ALT2 that have the closest paraphrasing. The sentences on microphones need rewriting. The ALT2 hook is the most interesting of the above, and by itself does not appear to be a close paraphrase. QPQ not done. CMD (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QPQ completed. Soulbust (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Is this ready for a new look? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some rewriting is still needed to remove the close paraphrasing. CMD (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

African Space Agency

(
)

Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/African Space Agency; 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: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - The hook teases with its talk of a space city. The reader is likely to be disappointed that the article has a red link for this. Perhaps this should be unlinked and the section expanded to give them more details of the space city.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The biggest issue is balance as there seems to be plenty of negative opinion out there. Also, I'm not understanding the reference to Jailangkung in the nominator's comment. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, that was the QPQ, I must have put it in the wrong box. Regarding neutrality, those are older articles of the sort of discussion that always precedes the creation of any body (is it necessary, what would it do, etc.). The opposition was the same as it always is for these projects, money better elsewhere, another white elephant sort of thing. I don't see that as due. I also haven't put any positive opinion in. In both cases, as the org was just founded, there isn't much actually behind it either way (well, a delay of opening from 2022 to 2023, but again that is reasonably routine and I haven't seen any source call it out). On the Space City, it's a newly built complex that also holds the Egyptian Space Agency. I can add more to this article, and alternatively I suppose an article could be created for it; I thought it worth a red link although I'm not 100% on how notability for that sort of infrastructure development. CMD (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wondered if Jailangkung was the QPQ but didn't recognise your abbreviated sig of CMD there. I've updated the review now to acknowledge this.
But I'm still not content with the other issues. I'll look at the topic more closely myself.
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have found a second source noting a different person with a similar concern over prioritisation from before the agency was founded, so I have added that citing both that source (in a CNN report) and Martinez 2012. I also found two sources noting a slowdown in 2020 due to budget and benefit concerns, and so added that as well. CMD (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosa Smester Marrero

(
)

Created by Rafird (talk). Nominated by MB190417 (talk) at 22:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rosa Smester Marrero; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

will review this FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:26, 5 March 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
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg (hook brainstorming) Well-written article and kudos MB190417 for rescuing the article . Learned a lot. some minor comments (1) re-upload the image as a non-free image if you do not know if it is free or not given the that the subject is dead. Use this link and take this image as a reference of how to fill the required info. here also some alternatives. (2) can you address the reliability of reference no. 6 and 9 (preferably on Talk:Rosa Smester Marrero and why you think it can be accepted, or please provide a better reference?

Hi @FuzzyMagma, thanks for your very kind review. I've reuploaded the image, and removed the claims previously tagged with "better source needed" (further explanation is provided on the talk page). Please note too that I came across another book which - thank heavens - published two of Smester's works, so the article has now been further expanded, and may require further copyedits. New additions mostly discuss her views of feminism, motherhood, gender roles, and teaching; here is the diff since your review. As for ALT1, this now includes a claim retracted from the article, so here are some other alternatives:
@MB190417: great work, thanks for adding the picture and for elaborating more on your sources in the page talk. Truly great work. if you improved the lede and dug some details about her early life, I think there is a chance this can be a good article. I might come later and help. As for now, I did some light copy editing and removed some typos. All new ALT are referenced, and I like ALT2 and ALT4. We can make it more dramatic/controversial by ALT5: ... that Rosa Smester Marrero, a prominent Dominican feminist, believed motherhood is a woman's "true mission" and a woman's life devoid of maternal work is "useless"?
I will leave it to you to decide between ALT 2, 4, and 5. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Far from making it dramatic/controversial, I would say ALT5 just makes it both tedious and offensive to those of us who have heard this far too many times. There are lots of catchy alternatives, let's use them. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Articles created/expanded on February 23[edit]

Matt Hicks (basketball)

(
)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 03:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Matt Hicks (basketball); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]