"was rumored to be" yet the article completely scotches any truth in that at all. Does an encyclopedia normally act like a gossip column on its main page? If we stuck to what was written in the article, it'd be a start.
Ref improve tagged. Should have been spotted at QPQ.
Grimes added WorldCat numbers, I added German National Library. Recordings are among the things most easily verified, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, but WP:V and WP:RS are clear, as is the DYK rule on referencing.
clothing "made from fish"? I don't think so. "fish clothing" here seems to refer to articles of clothing which depict fish or other ichthyological items. I'm not seeing anywhere in the source that says the items are actually all "MADE FROM FISH". That, after all, would be utterly bonkers.
Is "notorious" really the right word here? Generally, people are said to be "notorious" for qualities or activities that are "bad". Perhaps what was meant was "experience notoriety"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
All context-free here. It's such a shame not to note the Englishness of the animator, the Venice-ness of the presentation, and the stompiness of Nazi feet. That would be hooky and interesting.
"the U.S." and latterly "the United States" in the same set of blurbs, be consistent. Plus the article says they set sail from New York to England OTD, not that this was the day the tour concluded (which I would typically imagine would be the date of the final performance, right, which the NYT was reporting on the 25 May...?)
The number of "over (sic) 50 million" is an estimate, so this should be reflected (along with replacing "over" with "more than", obv. And the blurb (despite trying not to be) is misleading, it wasn't Crosby's version which went on to sell 50 million+, it was all the versions added together, estimated...
Actually, it WAS Bing's version which sold that many copies by itself.--Khajidha (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The lede says The version sung by Bing Crosby is the world's best-selling single with estimated sales in excess of 50 million copies worldwide. Other versions of the song, along with Crosby's, have sold over 50 million copies. The second sentence appears to add absolutely no new information... — Amakuru (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Well how confusing. Is the second sentence saying that the covers sold another 50 million? Should we be linking to an article which has such a confusing opening?
According to the Sales section, Crosby's version has sold more than 50 million, while overall sales are more than 100 million. That doesn't necessarily mean that the covers sold more than 50 million though... but at least the basic fact mentioned in the hook seems correct. — Amakuru (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the precept is about not harming living creatures, not simply about not killing them. And it would be helpful to link to the actually precept, i.e. Ahimsa. And it would also be great if someone could write a hook which wasn't so repetitive, do we really need "precept" twice in such quick succession? Answer: Nope.
"most watched" should be hyphenated, like the article, in this context. And it is ONE HELLUVA STRETCH to claim "one billion annual viewers" when the sources provided note it got one billion viewers in one year, ever. Perhaps "one billion viewers in 2018" as this is an encyclopedia and we really shouldn't just be making shit up?
"may be ... might be..." is this encyclopedic? REALLY? And worse, is it even, in any sense, interesting to a broad audience? I think this is officially the worst, most boring hook about a completely non-descript bird I have ever seen. So congratulations on that. Perhaps try a quirky hook: "... that the scaled piculet is so dull, most overlook it?"
I've rewritten the hook slightly, although there's not much I can do about the "interesting to a broad audience" objection... — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any really good reason to pipe this to a section of the article, it's confusing. The article is clear that Sunnis and Shia Muslims observe it on different dates.
These articles are forever inconsistent. We have two mentions of "at least 141" and one (in the infobox) of exactly "148". We shouldn't really feature articles with such issues. Some consistency would be good. Indeed, a recent article backs up the 148 claim, so I would imagine the blurb's "at least 141" can now be revised to "148", the article similarly.
"the Rolling Stones" instead of "The Rolling Stones".
Yes
Image
Since the hook is targeting Keef, why don't we just use an image of ... Keef? There's a few to choose from, including a really good one at the infobox of the target. And in any case, we don't need the verbose caption, just "in 2013" is fine, the performing live at Hyde Park is unnecessary fluff. But replace the image and that problem goes away too.
The word "about" adds literally nothing to this hook, and that turn of phrase is not used in the article either, so whoever thought that was a good addition ought to re-think.
MOS:DATERANGE says that date items containing a space (e.g. ca. 1860s – 1943) but for specific ranges which don't include a space, e.g. Year to year or month to month, it suggests an unspaced dash. Although this specific case isn't mentioned, I'd have thought the unspaced version is better given that neither 1860s nor 1943 has a space in it. — Amakuru (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
1860s is not a specific range.
No it's not, but as this case isn't apparently explicitly mentioned by any of the rules given at DATERANGE it is left to us to infer whatever we can from them. What I have inferred is that, seemingly without exception, the rules say that date ranges with a space on either side use a spaced dash, while date ranges with no spaces on either side (which this is) are styled with an unspaced dash. I don't see a cast-iron reason why it would be better to space it. — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
It simply follows the general theme that if one side of the range is uncertain and marked as such, the spaced en-dash is used. But of all the problems which have been left to fester over the past 36 hours, this probably isn't in the top ten.
The word "international" is entirely redundant here, as the layovers in different continents adequately demonstrate the "internationalness" of her job.
I'm going to leave this one alone... It's not actually a true error, and it's too minor an issue to incur the wrath of the DYK project over. — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose good writing isn't a requirement for the main page of Wikipedia these days...!
No geographical context whatsoever, so it should be US$.
Actually it should have been CA$.... I believed you without checking and now I've been told off. 😟 — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
So the original hook was even worse without the type of $...
Yes
General
Main page balance
Three lines of whitespace below DYK.
Yes
DYK
General
Yet again, no queue in place.
Eleven hours to go...
Amakuru, any chance you have time for the errors showing right now and for tomorrow's batch?
SIX hours to go...
Sorry, I didn't get the ping above, I think because you didn't sign it... (weird and wonderful MediaWiki rules). Also I was away camping all weekend. Am I really the only person who ever promotes DYK queues? — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Seemingly. And you're also one of the only people fixing the errors too (six of which sat on the main page for several hours yesterday!)
"1980–81" is piped to a redirect and is an Easter egg (season should be included in the link, per the previous instance in this blurb), and "next season" is piped to a redirect (but good to see season included in the pipe).
"three major championships"... well, given serious concerns over what constitutes a "major championship" including some dubious claims at Treble (association football), and given that Manchester City this year won the League Cup, the FA Cup and the Premier League, I'd say this blurb needs either re-rephrasing, or axing altogether. Or simply replace "only" with "first", and hope the target article backs up that claim....
Of course I wrote the blurb before City won the league this year. —howcheng {chat} 18:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, pity it ran for nearly the whole day, a week or so after that event nullified this OTD...
Yes
25 May 2019
General
Balance
Hugely out of whack again, about five lines of whitespace under DYK. Suggest losing an OTD at the very least.
Why is image caption in italics? If it's the formal name of the painting, did C.W. Stephens himself paint it? There appears to be no evidence of either....
And now it transpires that the image is copyrighted, and that it shouldn't even be in the article, let alone featured on the main page! Goodbyeeeee!
I don't think it's copyrighted. The fact that they have stamped a copyright notice on the image on their website doesn't override the fact that it has expired in both the US and the UK, based on the age of the work. — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
But I'm not seeing the evidence of that, certainly not in the Commons data. The link goes to a colour version with no detail at all (at a website which could host just about anything) while the other Commons link takes us to a monochrome version at BHO. There's no evidence that the colour version was created by Stephens. It's another complete mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, where's the source attributing the colour version of the image to Stephens please?
Unreferenced section, thus ineligible and tagged. And really, they were "considered" to be the glamour couple, in an article in Die Zeit, not in Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice.
Sorry, late. The hook said "a glamour couple" which was changed. I changed it back in the article, but it would take an admin for the hook. - The "section" was three roles - found in the German article. I dropped one, another was there before, and I mentioned the third one (Manon) in the prose with a new ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Frankly the hook is stupid. Of course it's not a yellow Irish lord, that's a different species. If this is trying to be quirky, put it in the last slot, because right now, saying "species A is not species B" for whatever reason is hardly of interest.
"winningest coach" at what, pray tell? "advocating physical education"??
It may work better to say: ... that college field hockey and lacrosse coach Fay Biles was the winningest coach in Kent State University history? Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Well at least our readers would stand a chance of understanding what she was "winningest" (ARGHH!) at.
Perhaps "most successful" would be a less informal (and less regional) alternative. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Just curious why " Denmark–Norway " uses the en-dash while " Franco-Spanish-Bavarian " uses hyphens?
My guess is that Denmark–Norway is a proper name in its own right, while "Franco-Spanish-Bavarian" is a compound adjective used for an ad hoc purpose. Per MOS:ENBETWEEN, Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen. Although I notice that this has already been resolved, perhaps the blurb could be reworded to avoid the above construction, but I think it's more or less acceptable now. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Productions section is mostly unreferenced, tagged as such.
Had to come, no? Here we have a substantial overview over the long career of a productive man. - Ok, I commented out all unreferenced but world premieres, which I'm determined to find something. My time on Earth is limited, so I will not try for the others. I'm so tempted to make a footnote: If you really want to see what he directed, turn to the German Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
All world premieres now referenced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the German Wikipedia, as usual, is bereft of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the list is correct. - Can you mark this as resolved? I don't dare to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect it might be correct but without reliable sources there to verify it (and, after all, this is an encyclopedia) who knows?
I found around ten, and all supporting the listed productions. Accidentally I found even one beyond the premieres. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The tumbleweed is not mentioned by name in this target article, and moreover it is referred to as alga as opposed to seaweed, which would be an improvement in readability and fact.
Turns out Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, didn't sign this treaty until 7 June, and why isn't Albrecht von Wallenstein getting a shout here in any case??
It should be clarified which "magnitude" is in use here, the lead gives a range for " moment magnitude" while the infobox is talking "seismic magnitude" (which this is).
There is no such scale called "seismic magnitude", the link is going to the seismic magnitude scales article which describes various different ones. —howcheng {chat} 15:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
She didn't live to be 97, she died about four weeks before her 97th birthday (28 January 1741 – 1 January 1838). Either those dates are wrong or the claim at the end of the article is incorrect (along with the source?) Does anyone here check anything?
Just removed it. Her age is irrelevant to the hook anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is making this claim as if it's fact, while the article makes it much more vaguely, to whit: Some scholars argue that Coles's punishment was among those Nathaniel Hawthorne had in mind when he wrote the 1850 novel,... i.e. "some scholars", not "absolute fact" as declared by the current hook.
Seems very tenuous to link this while articles like Indonesian National Awakening exist. It's not so much about the quality, more the fact that we're leading readers to an article with one sentence about the event rather than the actual event itself. Probably should just pick something else, rather than an article which marks the observance in a passing sentence. And refers to it as Day of National Awakening, rather than National Awakening Day...
"over twenty" -> "more than twenty". AND WHY NOT JUST SAY "21" WHICH THE ARTICLE SAYS.... FOR THE LOVE OF ANYTHING SANE.... Oh, and the source used here doesn't mention "MUDFLAT" at all. So, good work everyone!!!!
Heh, so "over" became "more than" yet the answer is "21". Stupid is as stupid does I suppose. The rest is still outstanding.
Interestingly, because the claim apparently falls under MOS:PLOT, the hook is not actually referenced at all. I suppose we just allow all DYKs using story plots without a single reference to pass these days.
Pulled, but trying to learn: there's a plot part in the hook, and the real life part. So far I understood that plot needs no ref other than the book itself, so by some logic that part doesn't need a ref. The other, that it's a specific person's autobiography, is sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This is probably why DYK has a rule forbidding just "in-universe" hooks because most of those could derive from PLOT which needs no referencing at all.
I see it differently: it's a hook about a named comedian's autobiography, sourced, we could end there. As an add-on - like whipped cream on a cake - you get a little sample from the plot, which provides a feeling for the style. Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Because none of it is referenced.
Circle. Plot sectons don't need refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Plot sections of fiction, sure. But when someone is making claims about real life, that's a different kettle of fish.
Bilorv gets a cob on (and pings me!!) because a completely unreferenced hook is noted here, yet also noted and pulled via another place (i.e. nothing to do with me). By all means, Bilorv, vent at me for pointing out the obvious flaws, but don't assume it's to do with artificial inflation of the figures. That's clearly unnecessary since we're approaching 1700 errors fixed in 10 months! But thanks for your feedback, always welcome. Keep on keeping on, but do reference stuff!
Bilorv, per this when you'd like to apologise for your little outburst, feel free.
In that case I genuinely apologise for the mistake I made in assuming this was related to the ERRORS2 kerfuffle I'll AGF and assume that apology was for me too, especially considering the point raised at DYK (after my point was raised) was identical in substance. Also, see WP:PRIMARY.
"discouraged from a career in medicine" I suppose the fact that he "had wanted his daughter to become a nurse" wasn't a career in medicine? I know my nurse friends would be delighted to hear this kind of prejudice.
No context for this (once again), and it'd be neat if it could say it was in Ireland and the mistranslation was a Latin mistranslation, i.e. "motto of Midleton College in County Cork, Ireland, Spartam nactus es, hanc exorna, is a Latin mistranslation of a line from a Greek... " or similar
I know it's early (for some) but with the lead saying "ban on motorized automobiles from 1908–1919", should the hook really say "for ten years starting in 1908"? Wouldn't that mean it ended in 1918??
The article states it's an "unofficial holiday" but the "reliable source" states that it's an "official public holiday". Now which is true? And if the former, then should this source be relied upon? If the latter, then the article needs to be corrected as attention will be drawn to this specific clause tomorrow...
Bibliography section unreferenced, every work unlinked.
I've tried to argue that bibliography sections should be referenced, but seem to have hit a mini-consensus that they don't need to be, at least from here and here and here. Would be nice to get a true community policy on this, but at the moment I think efforts to veto articles on this basis may fall flat. That said, Mandarax has fixed up this particular case with refs for the works (albeit not for the selection criteria), so it's pretty much solved. — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
No, well just because a couple of "mini" discussions think they don't need to be referenced, that doesn't mean Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policies can be overlooked. I will continue to tag such wholly unreferenced sections. I'm afraid claiming that bibliographies are self-referencing is simply horsehit and anyone can add anything they like to such lists of works, just claiming "oh, well, it's self-referencing, once you find a copy, you'll believe it". Nonsense.
Fair enough, and I do agree with you, but we could do with clarifying the rules nonetheless. Currently the only proper policy I know of which explicitly covers this sort of thing is WP:LISTCRITERIA, which technically applies only to standalone list pages. When local people such as those at Seamus Heaney claim they've formed a CONSENSUS, I'm a bit toothless in trying to override them given that they can argue their interpretation of WP:V counts for bibliographies. — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The rules are encompassed by V and RS. Nothing else is required. There's no "get-out" for such content. It's not a movie plot, these are discrete pieces of work which can and should be verifiable using third party reliable sources.
I may not be privy to this detail, but the article uses "fourth amendment" and "Fourth Amendment" in similar contexts completely interchangeably. And the hook capitalises it. Why?
Changed all to capitalized form. You could use the lowercase form in a truly generic sense ("When drafting what became the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment adopted covered searches and seizures"), but such are rather rare and usually sound contrived. I also corrected an instance where improper use of pronouns resulted in the article saying that the US government argued against its own evidence collection. Does no one READ these things?
Thanks. And no, no-one seems to actually read the articles in toto, just the bits that will suffice in the QPQ, i.e. one sentence overall.
According to the linked Preferential block voting article (linked from the target article, rather than preferential voting linked in the hook!!!!), Australians used "preferential voting" (per the hook) since 1901, not the first time in 1919. Apparently, the 1919 thing was "preferential block voting" which is different. So either fix this whole mess, or re-think...
The article you link actually says they used "block voting" from 1901 and "preferential block voting" from 1919. Which would appear to suggest the preferential bit did come in when the hook says it did. Plus the main source verifying it does check out this exact fact. — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The hook says "preferential voting", not "preferential block voting"... And why is the hook pointing at a different article to the target article when it comes to this "preferential (block) voting"?
The article says in its lede that "The 1919 election was the first held since the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which introduced preferential voting for both houses of parliament". Preferential voting wasn't linked before, but now it is. Does that solve your concerns? The preferential block voting part actually only applies to one of the two houses, but both of them introduced some form of preferential voting for the first time in 1919. — Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Let me be plain. The target article links "preferential block voting" while the blurb links "preferential voting". This inconsistency in nomenclature and linking needs to be addressed.
More to the point, why are we wikilinking "genitals" in the first place? MOS:COMMONWORDS!!! I've unlinked it. — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Article/infobox seem confused on date of death, either 18 or 19 May...
Per later in the article, he was initially reported to have died on the 18th, but actually was killed the next day. —howcheng {chat} 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Rather than "were decided by the powerful Sayyid brothers", the article states "Syed Hassan Ali Khan Barha decided what Shah Jahan II should wear, what he should eat and when he should visit the Diwan-i-Aam" i.e. just one of the "powerful" (realllly??) brothers made such decisions. Hooks should reflect the facts given in the articles, no?
It looks like either brother could make the decision about meetings, even if only one of the brothers was in charge of the clothing and food menus. Probably OK as it stands, since the last two parts of the hook apply to both brothers. — Amakuru (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not I'm afraid, the last part of the hook only mentions meetings, not what to wear or eat.
If I told you "Fred and Jim are preparing the food, drink and tablecloths for the church fete on Sunday", you wouldn't pull me up if you later found out that only Fred had prepared the food, would you? Seems like the same situation here. — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I would if you were writing in an encyclopedia, of course I would. In fact, it's even worse because the article explicitly states that the one named brother did the food/clothes thing, in between sentences about both brothers. It's not good enough.
The hook is without any geographical context (Dabaab?? And a lot of readers will think York University is University of York of course), and without any clear indication of significance, what's the big deal about getting such a certificate?
"over 300" -> "more than 300". Having said that of course, the lead says " and injured almost 300". And a full-term unborn child was killed too, so should that be mentioned alongside the 33 also killed?
I suppose it could even be changed to 34 killed, as per the article's infobox. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 15:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"was elected" is piped to a redirect. Also, I can't see 68.18% in the article. And it's too detailed anyway.
Also, Grybauskaitė's and the election's articles both say 69.1%, which seems to be the correct percentage figure, not 68.18%. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 14:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Something else: according to MOS:PERCENT, shouldn't we be using "per cent" here, instead of the % sign? — RAVENPVFF·talk· 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not applicable to Main Page blurbs. —howcheng {chat} 19:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I remain to be convinced that adding the % to the blurb is really necessary, but at least now it somewhat reflects reality.
"was elected" is still a pipe to a redirect.
Yes
16 May 2019
DYK
Caption
Why do we care if these are musicians and why are we linking major geographical locations like Chicago??
The value of "nearly 22%" comes from 21.8% from a source published in 2011, so this fact is correct "according to the 2010 United States Census", which is almost a decade old.
It's also thoroughly uninteresting. How does that figure further my understanding of anything whatsoever? — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Well it's pretty clear that DYK now summarily ignores this fundamental tenet of the project, being "interesting to a broad audience". Which, as you say, in this case is simply not.
@Gerda Arendt: I see that you were involved in reviewing this hook. Would you object to changing to one of the others proposed? Personally I find ALT2 and ALT3 somewhat more interesting (although avoiding the word "plurality", which doesn't mean anything to readers outside the US). But others may differ. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't too happy with any of the hooks. I am afraid that only the original makes sense with the image, because who says it's from any limited space like some islands (and who cares). I don't know English enough to say if "plurality" is any good, or if a simple "most" would be better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There's no particular evidence that those in the picture are multiracial either though... The image appears to be a shot of some random people in Chicago, that was lifted from Flickr. — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised that the image was chosen for the lead spot. It's not ramdom people but named musicians, - I wonder if it's even free. - If it's used, we can't speak about Guam, not even California or Louisiana. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It is free, yes - it's under a CC licence at Flickr.[1] And yes, they're named musicians but there's no evidence that they're notable. And more importantly, the assertion that (a) they're all Filipino Americans, and (b) that one of them is multiracial, seems to be pure OR. I don't think the pic is any more of a fit for the current hooks than the alternatives. It might be best to relegate this down to being a non-picture hook. THanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can do it. It might not make me popular in DYK land, but since there are issues raised with the current formulation, I probably will shuffle this around later on. — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
DATERANGE these days says use full year either side of the en-dash, except for consecutive years or when space is a premium, neither of which apply here.
Bit of an odd one this. Firstly, we don't need to know Coulthard was a "driver", that's implicit in the fact he won the GP, but it's much more important that we know that Morgan was an engineer (and not a driver). It's probably worth noting also that he died in a plane crash (actually in a different country altogether) the day before, not at the race or as anything related to the race at all.
Really no need to link common terms like "cabaret".
I thought it was common until I saw Kabarett which seems to be different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Well this is English language Wikipedia and in English, cabaret is a common term.
But this was in Germany where Kabarett is frequent, so I thought we need to distinguish for those who know that. Nothing wrong with delinking, but you shouldn't count it as an error which is a disgrace to the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say she was comparing the character to a dog rather than Jack Russell (one of many individuals), but in BritEng, (and in the sources), she doesn't refer to it as Jack Russell Terrier, we never say that (unless I suppose you're at Crufts), we always call Jack Russells ... Jack Russells. No-one adds "Terrier".
Coming at this with no knowledge, I don't read in the article that 13 states convened on this day, the article says "very few of the selected delegates were present on the designated day of May 14, 1787; it was not until May 25 that a quorum of seven states was secured. " Any clarification on this would be gratefully received.
According to a source I have now linked in the article, the whole thing was called off on 14 May due to not enough bods being present. It did not resume again until the 25th. I've therefore replaced it. — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The somewhat overwhelming " first full freeway-to-freeway interchange in the United States" is piped to a redirect to a section for no good reason at all.
There was an article there before, which I've now restored. — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Both the hook and the article incorrectly use a serial comma. Churchill didn't use one, why should we?
It's not incorrect, it's an optional style. I don't think we particularly have to follow source styling on that one. And how do we know whether Churchill used one anyway? It was a speech, so it's presumably not defined whether the actual spoken version had commas or not, even if there was a transcript... — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Because the original speech is available at WikiSource and he didn't use a serial comma. Still, let's use Wikipedia to redefine history!
Well, the lead says "The Allied occupation of Austria started on 27 April 1945 as a result of the Vienna Offensive and ended with the Austrian State Treaty on 27 July 1955." so did it really end OTD or did it end on the day according to the lead? Either way, it's a confusing start for a reader clicking through from the main page, innit?
And the treaty signing, if that is what is being referred to, was on May 15, not May 12. I'm not seeing what relevant took place on May 12 at all. Leaving this for another set of eyes in case I've missed something, but I think this one is a "pull." Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE WHICH HAS CURRENTLY BEEN ON THE MAIN PAGE FOR SEVEN HOURS??
I don't seem able to verify the date, and I'm unclear as to why Iran is italicised in the article title, the paper wasn't called Iran was it? Nor was it a newspaper it transpires.... It was a "holiday-magazine" (sic) called Iran-e-jomee, right?
"Iran" preliminarily de-italicised in the article title. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 04:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The subject is British and ENGVAR applies so the species was named "after" her, not "for" her, that's USEng. This kind of edit is completely unjustifiable and unhelpful.
I'd never thought of this as an EngVar issue, but on taking a look TRM seems to be quite right—does anyone disagree? (However, in fairness, the editor who made the prior change was probably not aware of the British usage either, and likely thought he was making a straightforward grammatical/usage correction.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
That "prior editor" doesn't use English as a first language and should not be making ENGVAR changes to approved hooks.
He "turned down an offer"? But surely since he was ineligible, whether he turned it down or not was moot? Why is this interesting to a broad audience?
As I understand it, he could have accepted the mayoralty, but then he would have lost his federal employment; he (or anyone) was "ineligible" to hold both simultaneously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
So he was eligible then, he just needed to choose between one or the other job?
I looked, but I'm not sure I see a better way to handle this link given how the article is set up—do you have a suggestion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Just pipe to the relevant section rather than to a redirect.
Hook is a sea of blue. And given the obvious typo in the opening sentence of the lead, I do wonder if anyone actually read the article as a whole?? GYNMAN??!! And, SERIOUSLY: she developed a platonic love for the handsome Polish football striker Roman Kosecki truly dreadful stuff, and we're seriously considering linking this from our main page?
I was just about to start on that article, give me 15 mins JennyOz (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Needs a thorough grammar edit. --Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, it's a bit better, now over to you. Pls check my changes before you start. JennyOz (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Problem. If she was the "youngest of a brother and sister", how is it that her older sister died? Was this supposed to say that she was the youngest of 3 children (herself , an older brother, and an older sister)? --Khajidha (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
JennyOz very good of you to take a stab at improving that article, but HONESTLY, we should not be promoting these to the main page in a million years. It's as if someone just checked the sentence containing the hook and nothing else.... Completely inappropriate.
You're assuming they even checked that. Don't you know that DYK works on the "no hook left unpromoted" principle?--Khajidha (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
"He had four sons" in the article then followed by a table with five entries. What is going on in the review process at DYK? I knew it was abjectly poor, but this is taking the piss now.
According to the British Library, this is the oldest complete dated printed book. I suggest that "complete" is quite significant as it implies that older incomplete fragments exist.
This looks like a good change. Anyone disagree? Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Odd linking here, instead of just piping one third of the alliance, why not link "Pragmatic Army" instead?
I think the rationale for the link is that it’s the battle, not the army, that took place on the specific date. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting the target is changed, simply delinking the odd one-third of "Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian" and linking "Pragmatic Army".
That could work, but [[Pragmatic Army]] is a redirect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I’m not sure we should pipe a link to one article where the actual redirect is to a different one, but I don’t feel strongly about it. Anyone else?
I see what you mean. The article itself makes inconsistent use of Pragmatic Army and Pragmatic Alliance. Perhaps that needs addressing too. But my main beef is with the current curious linking of just one third of the alliance...
However, Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 doesn't mention "Pragmatic Army" at all, so that would be kind of an easter egg. —howcheng {chat} 15:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Funny how the target article links there then! What a mess.
Made the blurb reflect the article lead, although the sanction article doesn't use term "Pragmatic Allies" either. —howcheng {chat} 23:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Sea of blue in that blurb, plus it'd be better to link "world chess champion" to List of World Chess Championships. In fact, the linking is a little wonky, "in six games" is linked to "game 6" which isn't the same thing. It'd be neater to just use the match link.
"defeated" was linked to game 6. I took that one out. —howcheng {chat} 15:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to capitalise "Inaugural Ball" here and for those of us who aren't American, it's probably worth linking United States presidential inaugural balls (note, not capitalised!) so we can actually understand what it's talking about, both in the hook and in the article.
I haven't linked the inaugural ball as that would create a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Tried restructuring it a bit, but it didn't quite work so I couldn't be arsed. — Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, you at least de-cap'ed the Inaugural Ball nonsense. It makes me wonder how this stuff gets so close to the main page, it really does.
I don't think Wikipedia should be using hyperbolic tabloid terms like "killer germs" in its own voice, do you? Besides the article says "against emerging threats" not "against killer germs".
Ref added. —howcheng {chat} 17:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes
9 May 2019
General
Balance
About six lines of whitespace under DYK, very lopsided.
Still LOPSIDED, how unprofessional do we wish to appear??
It's not abominably unbalanced any more. There are even a few browser widths which have DYK ending below OTD: [2] - I'd say it's probably OK now. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I marked it as fixed as soon as I saw your update.
Oh yes, so you did. Apologies. — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The caption calls it the first "direct" image, while the hook calls it the "first images". At least have some consistency here. My understanding was that it was a composite image created from many images taken from many sources.
Come on people, the hook and the caption are saying two different things, sort it out.
I just approved a new hook! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: thanks for the speedy turnaround! I've put the hook back on the main page. TRM, do you see any issues with the new one? — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
"imaging" is piped to a redirect Amakuru but otherwise it's ok I think.
I don't think "issuing 400,000 responses" is the same as "responded to 400,000 enquiries", after all one can issue multiple responses to a single enquiry (and probably this was almost certainly the case for missing people, later found etc). Best to stick with the words in the actual article rather than just making stuff up. And why isn't her common name being used in the hook??
Her common name is still not being used, why is this?
I know this is supposed to be "quirky", but it simply makes no sense at all. What "street"? And if this is an encyclopedia, that slogan needs a full stop in the title.
"We begin bombing in five minutes" is just a sentence fragment though, whereas "Citizens! During shelling this side of the street is the most dangerous" looks like two separate sentences. I'm not sure what the MOS says to do about that in a page title. Also not sure what to do about the hook itself, but agree it's totally silly. Suggestions on a postcard. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually "We begin bombing in five minutes" is most certainly not a fragment, that's a whole sentence too.
As for the crap hook, go back to the nom and use the one proposed, neither of the ALTs make any sense.
The same sentiment expressed on Mainpage errors DYK, last night. Some admin, please have mercy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Some people were trying to argue for the quirky hook by citing the April Fool's Day thing. I really hope we can find a way to deprecate that before next year, if only because the kind of "jokes" used bear almost no resemblance to a real April Fool. — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure someone mentioned an RFC (which sadly I won't be allowed to participate in, but I'll enjoy watching!).....
The number killed is not referenced in the article.
Wow, someone completely misread the source. The number was 2385 (I could not figure out 2541 came into play), and most of the deaths were in Fiji, not Japan. —howcheng {chat} 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Ubi Soft was called Ubisoft (or Ubi Soft Entertainment), plus "graphic adventure" is piped to a redirect.
According to its own article, the company was called Ubi Soft Entertainment until 2003 and is now called Ubisoft Entertainment. That suggests that the version with no space was not in use in 2001. — Amakuru (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
So it was never called Ubi Soft. It was Ubi Soft Entertainment.
From the press releases etc. that are linked in the article it seems that "Ubi Soft" was the common shorter name for the outfit at that time. — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Murders don't "occur", that's far too passive. They "take place" as a minimum. And this factoid is desperate, indeed the article downplays the link as coincidental. Better would be to say something about the event, like he was murdered while performing or something. This is grim.
The article mixes its use of Parents' and Parent's in the South Korean section and I can't read the source so I can't verify it either way, but it needs to be consistent and reflective of the RS.
Google results of English-language Korean sources almost all use "Parents'" —howcheng {chat} 07:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't verify the 52 from the source given. (I can't verify the 200 either, but I suppose we AGF on such matters... should we?)
Ref #2 says Fifty-two or fifty-three persons were supposed to have lost their lives in this disaster. A death toll of 200 is also mentioned in this book from 1847. —howcheng {chat} 07:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, no wonder I missed such a non-committal estimate of the deaths...!!
They certainly took off on this day, and actually were sighted numerous times afterwards, but there's no definite claim in the article that they disappeared on the same day.
Rewrote blurb. —howcheng {chat} 07:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
"planning to record them all" adds literally nothing to this hook other than bloat. It's not interesting, it's speculative and actually confusing as the subject and object are no longer clear by this point in the sentence. And in fact, it turns out he's not planning it, he's started doing it.
There was ALT1 without it, and I wonder why that was not taken. Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing verifiable saying it happened OTD. The article has an unreferenced (and confused) claim "During the period between the passage of Constantius in the West and the arrival of Gallus in the East, or immediately after the arrival of the Caesar in Antioch, the Jews revolted in Palestine" so absolutely nothing clear that it happened OTD.
It looks like what did happen OTD was Gallus' arrival in Antioch. [3] dates it to 7 May 351. Replaced with Pontiac's War. —howcheng {chat} 16:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't see where, in the source which verifies the date of this, any mention of Akio Morita...
That's page 2 of a 4-page article. On page 1, it says "Ibuka and Morita, the founders of Sony..." Not sure why Morita isn't mentioned on this page. —howcheng {chat} 16:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so the linked URL doesn't provide verification, you have to find it on another page?
"brilliant" shouldn't be here at all, this is an encyclopedia. If it's part of a quote, quote it. Otherwise encyclopedias don't describe things as "brilliant".
"Brilliant" is short for the quote (in the article) "a piece whose brilliance is only matched by the audacity of its conception", so can't be exactly quoted, too long. Drop if you have to. Sigh. In celebration mood and mostly offline for most of tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It’s in Wikipedia’s voice, inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter where she was from ("of Hamburg" sounds particularly odd) nor where her dance school is, and even if it's deemed essential, we certainly don't need to link those locations.
fine not to link, but the Hamburg sea and the Swiss mountains are a contrast I'd not know how to express any shorter, - I don't want to say "the German-Swiss", not "the Swiss German". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No, there's literally no interest in "of Hamburg" or Basel here...
1) The locations aren't relevant to the point. 2) even if they were, all you have given us is two place names. You did not say "Hamburg sea" or "Swiss mountains". Reading it as written, the contrast you are going for is not apparent. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Avoid using contractions per MOS. And "newspaper" rather than "paper", this is an encyclopedia. Oh and "surrendering one's interest" in something is not equivalent in any sense to "losing interest" in something. Lost in translation methinks.
Still got a contraction in the hook....
Where is the contraction? I assumed you meant paper -> newspaper, which I've done. Is there another one? — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, never mind, I've found it. The name of the (news)paper itself. I didn't spot that one. — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "couldn't"....
Crap, I'm really slow on the uptake this morning. So the newspaper title was correct, because it was just the Constitution at that time. Fixed properly now, I hope. — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The source for this hook says she still plays netball, so the hook should reflect the facts of the matter.
I think she still played netball at the time of the draft, in October last year, but she now plays Australian-rules football professionally so it's possible she's toned down the netball playing. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
That is not what the source says, I thought we were using verifiable reliable sources?
We are, and the fact that she played netball in her junior career and was still doing so in October 2018 is cited. Hence what the hook says is not inaccurate, the only possible complaint is that it doesn't tell the whole story. But as for whether she still plays netball in May 2019, that's not cited at all and I haven't found a source which mentions it one way or the other. So given that we don't know, it seems better not to say it than to say it. — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The source doesn't say she played netball in her junior career, it says she currently still plays netball. We're not reflecting the source.
Shame not to link "trained" to Hymenoptera training, and if anyone read the target article, surely "Bees do not fly at night, in heavy rain or wind, or in temperatures below 4 °C (39 °F),[79] but these limitations are similar to those of dogs." would have cracked a laugh... I didn't realise that dogs could fly....
The source for the date refers to this as Boy's Day, not Children's Day, with Girl's Day being observed on 3 March. That source was published in 2005, 57 years after the claim in the article that it was renamed. Dubious, to say the least.
The very same source on page 188 says "Children's Day" (and from personal experience, having lived in Japan for 3 years, I can attest to that). The footnote that's in the article is describing tango no sekku, which is the old name/version of the holiday. —howcheng {chat} 01:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
36 bridges? The article clearly delineates between bridges (of which there are 8) and arches. Hence the title of the article. If the wording in this hook was true, the list should just be called List of bridges in Central Park. The lead says "36 ornamental spans" which is quite nice. Although does beg the question why the article isn't called List of ornamental spans in Central Park... And why "thirty-six" when MOS would recommend 36? And why is the caption centred, looks really odd to me.
I've fixed most of the issues mentioned, but thirty-six is fine per WP:NUMERAL. For numbers expressable in two words the format is optional. — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This is strange because the article isn't about one single invasion, yet a series of invasions, so the title of the article is incorrect. We shouldn't really be linking to articles with such basic issues from the main page.
I've moved the article and amended the hook to make it clear that just one of several invasions is referred to. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The hook is replete with easter egg links, two to cities which are actually opera companies and one to a town which is actually a festival.
The towns are just abbreviations, - yes we could link to the towns, but would that tell the reader for example in which of three operea houses of Berlin he did that? We could also delink, but may have readers who won't know that Schwetzingen runs a festival which serves a world premiere each year, thanks to a broadcaster. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
They're not abbreviations, they're easter egg links. Especially when two link to opera companies and one links to a festival. This is not what our readers would expect when clicking on each link, so it't not appropriate for the main page.
You can delink Berlin and Munich, and say "at the Schwetzingen Festival". - When I see a link to Berlin, I'd not expect to the city because that would not be linked at all, as a current capital. As you wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I would just call it as it should be, without piping to easter eggs. But as you know, I (personally) can't do anything about it other than note that as it stands, it's full of easter egg. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I am against three clumsy long names of theatres and a festival, - undue weight when we want to get to his stirring role creation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I'm against easter eggs.
These are not WP:EASTEREGG links in the sense that they "require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on", as described there, or simply because they link to specific aspects of the cities involved rather than the cities themselves. I think the hook is clear. Jmar67 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course they need to be clicked on to be properly understood. Berlin is Berlin, nothing else. Easter eggs. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The blurb claims " the fastest winds recorded on Earth" but Wind speed says this was "on 10 April 1996: an automatic weather station on Barrow Island, Australia, registered a maximum wind gust of 408 km/h (220 kn; 253 mph; 113 m/s)." Perhaps replace "on Earth" with "in a tornado on Earth" or something to make it clear this is just the "tornado" record, and not the absolute record. Also, the Tornado records article linked from this target article appears to make the same unverifiable erroneous claim too.
The tornado had winds of 484 km/h ± 32 km/h, which is faster than the Australia speed, and you omitted the first part of the sentence from the wind speed article: "The fastest wind speed not related to tornadoes ever recorded ..." (emphasis mine). —howcheng {chat} 15:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no consistency at all in whether this should be italicised.
I would have thought it should not be italicised, at least as a foreign term, since it's a proper noun. I've edited the blurb and article accordingly. That said, it was your decision to italicise the title of the article, so perhaps you disagree. — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Only to be consistent with the lead usage. On further inspection, it looks like more should have been done, in either direction, to make it universally consistent.
Ordinarily I agree, for obscure calculations like the Easter date and Jewish festivals etc, we should cite the date for the given year. This one is cited as "first Thursday in May" though... I'd have thought that's good enough for a WP:CALC - even I can figure that one out. — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, so the source for "first Thursday in May" is verifiable?
This source at the end of the first paragraph seems to verify it, unless you think that's not reliable enough? — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me perhaps it's my corporate firewall. Is that a primary source?
It's an archived version of a page which is apparently still available: [4]. I guess it is primary, since it's the national day of prayer website. The day is defined in law, [5] as I've just clarified and cited in the lede, although technically since the day must be "proclaimed" by the president every year there is an outside chance it could not have happened this year. Is that a problem? Not sure there's going to be a source for every year that it might be proclaimed... — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
President Donald J. Trump did indeed proclaim the day for this year, but I can't see anywhere in the article to actually include that citation, short of adding a spurious one-liner somewhere. The infobox is one of those ones that auto-calculates the dates and leaves no space for pesky irritations such as WP:V. — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
That's really interesting, that a proclamation has to be made each year for the observance to be valid in law. This really should go in the article.
I've added a reference saying it's always 1 May. I think maybe because people sometimes begin celebrating the night before, it became thought that 30 April was an alternative date for it. — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
