Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from T:TDYK)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Did you know...?" template
Queue T:DYK/Q
Nominations T:TDYK
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK.


List of DYK Hooks by Date
Date # of Hooks # Verified
October 13 1
October 22 1
October 24 1
October 31 1
November 10 1
November 12 1
November 14 2
November 15 2
November 17 1 1
November 29 1
December 3 2
December 5 1
December 7 1
December 10 1
December 11 1
December 12 1
December 14 1
December 15 3
December 17 4
December 18 1
December 19 3
December 20 1
December 22 7 1
December 25 2 1
December 26 2
December 27 3
December 28 3
December 29 3
December 30 2
December 31 6
January 1 2
January 2 4 1
January 3 1
January 4 10 2
January 5 5 2
January 6 5 2
January 7 8 6
January 8 3
January 9 12 4
January 10 8 2
January 11 13 8
January 12 9 2
January 13 15 3
January 14 10 6
January 15 9 1
January 16 12 3
January 17 17 7
January 18 18 7
January 19 11 6
January 20 18 6
January 21 14 3
January 22 19 6
January 23 15 6
January 24 11 2
January 25 10 1
Total 319 89
Last updated 20:24, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Current time is 20:37, January 25, 2015 UTC (purge)

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an article[edit]

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.

Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e,g, "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.
Post at Template talk:Did you know.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading—​the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :*<!--Make first comment here--> showing you where you can put the comment.
  • Save the page.

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.

Frequently asked questions[edit]


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 (so that those hooks don't grow stale), 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 above).

Where is my hook?[edit]

If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings.

If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

  • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote. In a separate window, open the prep area you intend to add the hook to.
  • Paste the accepted hook and the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) into the prep area. Make sure to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas.
  • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=yes. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a green archive box and stating that the nomination was successful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.
  • In your edit summary, please indicate which prep area you are moving the hook to.

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 is usually 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.
    • Leave a comment explaining that the hook was removed from the queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
    • If the day title for the section that contained the hook has been removed from this page, restore that section.
  • 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.
  • Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed

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.


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 13[edit]

Disability in China

  • Comment: There are around 83 million people in China with disabilities and 80 million is the estimated total population of Germany. This is also my first time nominating an article.

Created by Appleangel11 (talk). Self nominated at 03:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Before anyone says anything, this would be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR in an article, but in a hook I think it's fine. EEng (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg The proposal is not useable as a hook under the current rules, which are as idiotic as valid. Strike. It would work if we changed to "aspect" and !"navigation" as suggested. I would agree to do so, but ask you to support the generic rule change as proposed. The article is new and long enouigh, saw no copyvio. Find another hook and go. Serten (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg insufficient reason given for rejecting the hook. I have removed the strikethrough. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@EEng How is synthesis in this particular hook fine? My objection is that the hook is not directly cited. There should be a reference for the approximate number of people with disabilities in China (which has been done) and the estimated population of Germany (which isn't exactly relevant to this subject). Unless someone happens to find a source that contains both, I don't see how this goes through. Fuebaey (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR allows for simple arithmetic and comparing one quantity to another, so that's not the problem here. The problem, if there is any, is that normally just grabbing two otherwise unrelated numbers and comparing them, to make some kind of point (not made in a RS) can lead to POV SYNTH and other no-nos. Here, it's just being used to give the reader an idea of scale, and though I find that kind of thing hokey in an article (especially the ubiquitous comparison to football fields -- "A warehouse as big as FIVE FOOTBALL FIELDS") I think it's OK in a hook. It's not a POV problem because no "point" is being made. EEng (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It implies there are currently more disabled people in China than there are people in Germany and assumes that the statistics haven't changed since they were taken. Not that I'm suggesting anything against the nominator, but why should an extrapolated survey sampling of disabled population made in 2006 [1] be compared against a census for general population made in 2011 [2]? Surely, considering the two statistical methods are quite different (and made five years apart), it would be misleading to state this as factual. Scale is one thing but, like your football warehouse analogy, if both aren't properly defined it won't read well. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have (ahem) a degree in statistics so excuse me a moment while I don my white lab coat. <minutes later> I am now clothed in the Raiment of Authority. Where were we? Oh yes. Well, just because the two numbers were derived in those two different ways doesn't mean it's not appropriate to compare them this way -- it is. If you were trying to make a confidence statement about the likelihood that one number was larger than the other, then you'd have to bring in the uncertainties attendant on each of them.
Now doffing my Raiment of Authority and returning to my usual role as a normal Wikipedia editor, I agree it doesn't necessarily excite the imagination -- frankly, knowing how huge China is, the Germany comparison doesn't give the impression of a large subpopulation. EEng (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review requested. Fuebaey (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments Just browsing past and saw this. It seems completely arbitrary to compare total people in Germany with the sick people in China. Is there really nothing specific about this article topic to provide an interesting hook, without any real or perceived WP:SYNTH / WP:OR concerns? While requirements for a DYK may not be as stringent as for GA or FA, we should still have some regard for main-page space.Gaff (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Good piece of work; a very useful article. Plenty long enough when it was nominated, but it's been further expanded since. Nominated on the day it was moved into mainspace. Spotcheck have not revealed any copyviolation. Mostly suitably referenced, but in the section 'Laws, regulations and policies', there is a fully unreferenced table. It should be easy to fix that, given that the references in the subsequent sections appear to refer to the various table rows. The section 'Protection' has an incomplete sentence ending in "citizens this right…", and this should be fixed before this heads to the main page. No other policy issues detected. Regarding the hook, one half isn't cited (the German population bit) and as such, it doesn't pass the requirements. New editor with no DYK history, so no QPQ required. In summary, an excellent piece of work and the issues listed here are easy enough to get on top of. Schwede66 03:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that there are more people in China with disabilities than there are people in Germany, the 16th-most-populous country in the world?
    I'm not saying we need to keep the synthy hook, but this version addresses the concerns above (why Germany? and whither sourced facts?) Obviously introducing the comparison in the actual article is counterproductive. [edit: The bolding needs to be improved as well. Fixed in original hook as well.] — LlywelynII 11:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:DYK rules on hooks, Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Since Germany isn't even mentioned in this article, any hook that not only mentions Germany but states various facts about the country is a clear non-starter. I've struck both hooks; Appleangel11, you need to come up with a hook where the all the facts are both in the article and properly cited. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not to get in a war by undoing your strikes myself, but you're being silly. And any time someone is being silly owing to overly-literal application of rules, there's WP:IAR, which supercedes the local one. The number of people is cited and supported and bringing in a helpful sense of scale is no problem here whatsoever, any more than it was with my DYK hook on St Teath where we used a rhyme (not given in the article) instead of giving people the IPA (which was). — LlywelynII 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying something totally different and more relevant as the issues for disabled in China are mostly to do with attitudes:

To be more geographically specific that could be

thoughts? --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed of newly proposed ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm happy to review the Alt hooks, but first I'd like to see the outstanding issues addressed as per the above: "in the section 'Laws, regulations and policies', there is a fully unreferenced table. It should be easy to fix that, given that the references in the subsequent sections appear to refer to the various table rows. The section 'Protection' has an incomplete sentence ending in "citizens this right…", and this should be fixed before this heads to the main page." Schwede66 23:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should have checked on outstanding issues, Schwede66; my apologies. I do note that nominator AppleAngel11 has not edited on Wikipedia since November 25. Perhaps we should set a deadline of January 25 for action to be taken to address the outstanding issues, either by the nominator or by someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Higher Ground (Jennifer Rush song)

  • Comment: I wrote the stub and about two sentences (the two YouTube links) of the article - not enough, in my opinion, to deserve a DYK credit for this and thus not a self-nomination.

5x expanded by Max24 (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC).

  • (Not a review; just a casual observation:) The hook doesn't make sense to me. After a quick glance at the article, it looks like "she" in the hook should be replaced with "Celine Dion". Is that correct? MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I amended the hook and found the detail that made it more interesting. However, the paragraph supporting the translation is uncited, and as a whole I am not sure there's enough standard prose in the article to qualify for DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I have added a source to the unsourced paragraph. I can confirm that "she" should be replaced by "Dion".--Launchballer 23:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I also think its an effective hook, but the article remains problematic, especially the section on the Jennifer Rush version: banal one-sentence subsections (she sings and dances on her music video? she sang the song on a television show?) are not adequate. (There's enough for a single short paragraph.) DYKcheck is counting the subheaders for each form of release, which means they aren't properly formatted; this would be right on the minimum length if those were omitted from the count, as they should be. Right now, I'm afraid the article does not deal adequately with the subject (WP:DYKSG#D7), and needs to be beefed up in the Rush section if it's going to be eligible for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me how it looks now.--Launchballer 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Still inadequate. Citing a non-independent source for charting info? Not a good idea. Notability isn't even shown yet... no in-depth discussion of this song in sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the song passes WP:NSONG#C3 as it has been covered. However, I found one reliable source in my first 100-page screed of Google results that hasn't been used yet - this one and there's some more I can squeeze out of the offline album source. Otherwise, I'm stuck because not only has she not written any autobiographies, no biographies have been written about her.--Launchballer 23:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review request. Official chart archives are valid sources, according to the recommended chart list. I've removed the UK position because it's not given in the source provided and the other sources point that it only charted in Austria and Germany. If notability is still an issue please discuss it over at WP:AFD. Fuebaey (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have spent the last two weeks thinking Crisco was saying that the article used a Chartarchive.org reference. The Official Charts Company only goes down to 75, whereas Chartarchive.org displays the full 100. I have added a reference to Chartarchive.org.--Launchballer 20:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Neither here nor there as to the issues above, but you can't phrase the hook so that you're talking about a song by "Rush". Among other markers, the band's page was viewed 65,000 times in the last month versus J.R.'s 6000. I mean, yes, misdirection like that may increase click-throughs but we're trying to be informative here, not Buzzfeed.
    ALT1: ... that Celine Dion covered Jennifer Rush's "Higher Ground"—in French—before recording her "The Power of Love"?
    ALT2: ... that before she covered Jennifer Rush's "The Power of Love", Celine Dion had already covered Ms Rush's "Higher Ground" ... in French?
     — LlywelynII 12:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    You're going to need an independent reviewer for that hook anyway, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Jennifer Rush is the Rush referred to in the hook given that she'd already been mentioned.--Launchballer 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    As with Ritchie below, no, it absolutely isn't. Grammar notwithstanding, Rush the band is much more famous than Ms Rush is and the hook has to be rephrased to accommodate that. — LlywelynII 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Not being funny, but when I read "Rush's", I thought it was something to do with Geddy Lee and Neal Peart. So, instead, let's try ALT3 : ... that Jennifer Rush's "Higher Ground" was covered by Mario Pelchat and Celine Dion in French as "Plus haut que moi"? The citation for that is not great, but I can't obviously believe the sleeve notes to Pelchat would not say what the article claims it does and the Allmusic source for that album does not go into as much depth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT hooks need reviewing. (Struck original hook due to objections above.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 24[edit]

Empire (2015 TV series)

5x expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 04:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC).

  • I think that'd be a nice idea, but don't know the processes involved. If you wish to, I would have no problems. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This show will premiere on January 7 at 9PM ET, which is January 8 at 03:00 (UTC). I will move this to a January 8 date request.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • According to the rules enumrated in the date section of T:TDYK, this article is not eligible for a date request until November 27. So it must remain here. I hope no one promotes it to the main page before then, but it remains eligible for immediate promotion until it can be date requested.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger, it's not eligible for a special occasion date request of January 7 regardless. The section says that the nomination should be made between five days and six weeks of the date, which is clearly not the case, and even if we stretch the rule to allow it if it was approved within six weeks of the date, it's still not eligible, and won't be no matter how long it needs to wait for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg You're welcome. However, I don't understand why the hook was approved, since the words "Academy Award" don't appear anywhere in the article. If you wish to include the fact that Daniels was an Academy Award nominee for directing in the hook, then that same fact must be present in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite. You've added the Academy Award fact, but not sourced it (his Academy Award isn't mentioned in the article, though Gabourey's is). Please add a new source for that (you still need the existing source to support that it's his directorial debut on television). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TonyTheTiger, thanks for adding the ref. However, the entire Premise section has been removed by another editor as a copyvio (it was added by an IP on October 24). At this point, the article no longer qualifies as a 5x expansion; 5x of 347 is 1735 prose characters, and the article is only 1552 prose characters (down from 1613 after I deleted an unnecessary sentence). I've read the article as it stands now, and the Casting section seems to be making claims about when someone was cast that just aren't backed up by the sourcing. For example, you write that Sidibe, Byers and Gealey were cast on March 10, while all the article says is that "The Hollywood Reporter has learned". The actual casting could have been days or weeks earlier. It certainly seems that way for Gray and Yoa, who, by their placement in the article, appear to be old news, and not part of the "scoop". I also wonder why the article lede says Sidibe "stars" in the show, when she's a recurring character. At best, that means she'll be a special guest star, but guest stars aren't the same. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article has been expanded. New review requested. Fuebaey (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Hook has previously been accepted. Given that the show has now aired, various editors have started adding to it, and 5x expansion is certainly no longer an issue. Recent additions are appropriately sourced. One minor issue is that the lead contains information that isn't contained in the body ("based on The Lion in Winter"); as such, the lead needs to have a citation, too. Better still, these details should be added to the body and cited there. Schwede66 04:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger, it's been over a week. Are you planning on addressing Schwede66's citation issue soon? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have taken a stab at this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuebaey needs to see this review, because he is whining about putting content in the main body that is in the LEAD. I will get to this within 48 hours, if not sooner.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Not that I got the ping but I don't see how an unverified statement is the same as moving one ref from one position to another. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you still have issues with another nom. Fuebaey (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Responding to TonyTheTiger a couple of lines above, it's good to go now. Schwede66 07:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No, I don't think so. That's hardly a "special occasion" for a weekly television show. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't be such a spoilsport, BlueMoonset. I'm sure that with a bit of willingness, this could be placed into the right queue. Next episode screens on 28 January (or January, 28 for my American friends). Schwede66 23:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If we've gotten to the point that a "special occasion" is merely the airing of an episode, then I think the idea has jumped the shark. If you and Tony insist, however, I'm happy to raise the question at WT:DYK to see whether people agree this is a special enough circumstance. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I for one am not insisting on anything. I was merely thinking that if TonyTheTiger as a good old regular who has done a lot of DYK work has a special request, why not show some flexibility? Ok, it can be a slippery slope in terms of precedence setting. But for example, it could happen that the editors putting together the queues are letting this one sit here until the next episode has sneaked up and the hook gets promoted just at the right time without ever having made it into the special occasions holding area. Just thinking out loud... Schwede66 04:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tony probably asks for and gets more special occasion requests than anyone. I think he can stand not having this one being granted, officially or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Back to square one. The version I reviewed was all nicely referenced, but an editor has gone through and removed every single reference from the section 'Main cast', and most references from the section 'Recurring cast'. Not sure why somebody would do that, but in its current state, the article doesn't meet DYK requirements. And upon request, I've gone back and checked this version for copyviolations. I've run the first 10 refs through the duplication detector and the were clean. Schwede66 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 31[edit]

Hail, Caesar!

  • ... that the upcoming film Hail, Caesar! is set in 1950s Hollywood film industry, whose idea was brought by Coen brothers in 2004?

5x expanded by Captain Assassin! (talk), Sock (talk). Nominated by Captain Assassin! (talk) at 02:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

  • I've struck ALT0 because I neither understand what it's trying say, nor can figure out how to fix it. EEng (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone should review the nom now but it should be published after November 10, because filming will begin on that day. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 10:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@EEng: Just yesterday an announcement made by an actor that it'd begin filming in January, which was first officially set for November 10. Now what's the plan for it, should we wait until November 10 and January, or should we remove the nomination and create it again when we revert back the article? --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if you've noticed but the article has been redirected to Coen Brothers, because films aren't considered notable until principal photography has begun, in large part because these repeated delays often mean it's not going to get made at all. I'm not sure what to advise you at this point, sorry. EEng (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. And sorry, too, that several of your noms seem to have been on the receiving end of my DYK-grumpiness of the last day or two.
So, should we delete the nomination at all or wait until January? It's just 2 months to hold up the review. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'd suggest just letting this one sit here until you (hopefully) are able to recreate the article, but I predict someone will come along and insist it be closed instead. EEng (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, a reviewer is needed here. Film's shoot is confirmed to start on November 10. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg This looks like a case of an article being built in mainspace from June 25, 2014 to November 1, 2014, then being blanked and made into a redirect on November 1, then being reinstated on November 7. The page was 2,893 characters before the redirect, and 3,772 characters as of the latest edit on December 16. This is going against several DYK rules: (1) The page was actually created on June 25, so it doesn’t qualify per DYK’s 7-day rule; and (2) according to Rule A5, the new copy that you added after the redirect must be 5x longer than the original, which it isn’t. I suggest that in the future you either keep these films-that-haven’t-yet-begun-filming in User Draft, or wait until you pass GA to nominate them. Yoninah (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Yoninah, I'm curious as to why this nomination doesn't qualify as a 5x expansion. When Captain Assassin! nominated it on October 31, it had 2931 prose characters and counted as a 5x expansion according to DYKcheck (expansion had started the day before, on October 30). It was then redirected on November 1 and restored again on November 7, a week after nomination, this time with 2881 prose characters and the 5x expansion still started on October 30 (and October 30 is still the expansion date today even with the article up to 3820 prose characters). Going with the November 7 restoration date, it's only eight days to get the 5x expansion. I'd be inclined to make an exception in this case because it qualified at the time of nomination and a week after that when restored, but in general agree with your final assessment: film articles started in mainspace in violation of WP:NFF that are subsequently redirected are unlikely to qualify for DYK if there was any meat to them, and that becomes extremely unlikely with multiple changes between article and redirect. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Mea culpa. This page has gone through so many redirects and restorations, even after Captain Assassin's nomination, that it's hard for me to keep track of what happened. I'm not sure how I got my original figures above, but now that I've investigated the history more thoroughly, I agree that the text as of the October 31 nomination was a 5x expansion over the revision as of 15:36, 30 October 2014. Only the first paragraph was retained and does not count in my calculation of the 5x expansion. New enough, long enough, well sourced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT1 hook refs verified and cited inline. I tweaked the grammar in the hook. All that's needed now is a QPQ. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Captain Assassin!: Are you still working on this? A QPQ review is required to push this on. Fuebaey (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm back. QPQ is given now, I co-reviewed the nom. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 02:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ done. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Yoninah, as I pointed out at the time, the review was completely inadequate: newness (and GAness) plus QPQ mentioned, and a hook issue. Lots of other checks were not covered: close paraphrasing, neutrality, overall article sourcing, and so on. It's why Cwmhiraeth had to do a new review from scratch. I'm going to be taking a hard line on this one, especially after the unfortunate claim earlier by Captain Assassin! that Template:Did you know nominations/Despicable Me 2 wasn't a self-nomination, in hoping to avoid a QPQ there. Full QPQs will need to be provided for this nomination and that one. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like I'm batting a thousand with this nomination :( Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Yoninah, I didn't know, I saw more than once, users mentioned/used co-reviewed noms as the QPQs. By the way a full QPQ is given now. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Second QPQ looks OK. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want to hold this up any more if you guys are already set on a hook, but some version of the original is certainly more interesting to me. How about
    ALT2: ... that the upcoming Coen brothers film Hail, Caesar! is set in the 1950s Hollywood film industry?
    We're not a marketing department, but I at least would want to know that this is a Coen brothers production and when it's set. — LlywelynII 13:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @BlueMoonset: Not that I want to prolong this either but could you check over the second QPQ and determine if it's adequate? No offence meant towards Yoninah, but since they raised their objection I thought I'd ask. Any thoughts on ALT2? Fuebaey (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuebaey, I'm not impressed by that second QPQ, which seems to have missed the "within policy" checks that include neutrality and close paraphrasing/copyvio (it depends on what "everything's good" covered, and based on the other reviews I've seen I'm not at all confident that it covered nearly enough). However, I'll let you decide whether you think it should be allowed to slide this time. As for ALT2, it doesn't particularly excite me, but I agree that the Coen brothers is a draw. Maybe add the 1920s from ALT1 to it for added interest? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not usually finicky over minor details unless there's an egregious mess up, but given that the nominator is a frequent contributor here at DYK, perhaps they should provide a QPQ that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been covered. On the plus side, how about:
ALT3: ... that the upcoming Coen brothers film Hail, Caesar!, set in the 1950s Hollywood film industry, was originally set to take place in the 1920s? Fuebaey (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 10[edit]

Ali Akbar Aboutorabi Fard

Ali Akbar Aboutorabi

  • ... that an Iraqi major (in Iraq–Iran war) in prison told Aboutorabi (pictured): "if Khomeine is like you, I will follow him"?
  • Alt1 ... that during the Iran–Iraq War, an Iraqi major told his prisoner Aboutorabi (pictured), "if Khomeini is like you, I will follow him"?

* Alt2 ... that during the Iran–Iraq War, an Iraqi major told his prisoner Aboutorabi (pictured), "if Khomeini is like you, I will follow him"?

Created by M.Sakhaie (talk). Self nominated at 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article was new enough when nominated. Although the article has a tag for needing the lede re-written that doesn't violate WP:V. The article is long enough. The hook appears in the article and is cited, but the FARS News Agency website indicates the material is an excerpt of a memoir, not a news article so it's not reliable. According to Google translate, the material doesn't back up the hook's assertion. If a third-party Farsi speaker can verify it's ok then I'd AGF. The hook is short enough (126 characters). The image amazingly comes from a GDFL website so that's fine. It's disputable if the images "shows well" at that size. Sajed.ir requires attribution so you can't crop the image, either. Nom doesn't have a DYK credit yet so QPQ isn't needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Chris troutman, I am a bilingual and I checked the content cited from FARS News Agency in this article. The translation was correct to best of my knowledge (Was one sentence after all :) ). However, since I am not a big fan of that news agency, I Googled the statement (in Farsi) and I was assured multiple sources are backing it. Hope that helps.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Kazemita1. Could you provide one of those other sources? That's the only thing holding up this nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is one example: 1 Chris. Moreover, I was able to find a book that confirms the story narrated in the Wiki article. It is available online here(Page 16 of the pdf file). I also checked the author and the publisher and it appeared they are both well established.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC).
As a matter of fact, even the Fars News Agency cites the book as its source at the end of its article where it says منبع خاطرات: کتاب "حجت الاسلام" Translation: Source of the recollections: The "Hojjat Al-Eslam" bookKazemita1 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Issue with NPOV in lede. Should it not be "Iran–Iraq War", with parties listed alphabetically? Also for coherent naming with Wikipedia articles. Proposed Alt1 hook with this change, more colloquial English and conventional spelling of Khomeini. — Brianhe (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think so. this page in Wikipedia use these words for this war, and this war is known by iran-iraq war. And about Khomeini: absulatly Khomeine is wrong, as in this page in Wikipedia use this spelling. By the way more important of all is using wikilink for these words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Sakhaie (talkcontribs) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Since Kazemita1 has verified the sourcing then this is good to go. I don't agree that there's any POV issue and the spelling of Khomeini is a matter of transliteration. ALT1 is 136 characters so it passes, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Can someone please crop out the website from all the images? I don't think it should be promotionally linked from the main page. Fuebaey (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You joined Wikipedia three months ago so now you're going to tell us what you think? I can only assume you believe it's a good idea to leave drive-by comments since you see everyone else doing it, too. Had you bothered to read you'd see in my review I said specifically "The image amazingly comes from a GDFL website so that's fine. It's disputable if the images "shows well" at that size. Sajed.ir requires attribution so you can't crop the image, either.". Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If pointing out a problem is problematic for you, feel free to ask for a second opinion. I don't have an issue with the license. The images are attributed on their respective files. Watermarks are not required on the photos and could be perceived as advertising. Fuebaey (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not only are they not required, they are not allowed. That needs to be removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear User:Chris troutman, can I ask to use wikilink for the word "Khomeini"?
    • You don't need a new hook to add an internal link. I added the link to ALT1. Also, links are generally discouraged within quotes but I think here it's useful. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Is there any problem due to no procceding of this DYK? M.Sakhaie 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to ask BlueMoonset. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • See my comment above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Therefore I should crop the image and reupload it in commons, should I? or something else I have to do? what about copyright issues? M.Sakhaie 05:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 12[edit]

Sigma I-62 war game

  • Reviewed: Bathycrinus aldrichianus
  • Comment: The Sigma I-62 war game is the first known instance of a war game predicting America's failure in the Vietnam War. It was staged 2 years before the first U.S. Marines landed at Danang, and 2.5 years before the Tonkin Gulf incident generally accepted as the war's beginning. Despite later similar predictions, the United States still fought the war. As predicted, they lost.
  • DISCLOSURE: The lead to this article is being used in several allied articles. NONE of that lead should be counted for qualifying any article for DYK.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

Symbol voting keep.svgSymbol question.svg - Article appears to meet all of the criteria. I would usually assume good faith on articles paper-sources however due to the nature of the subject and having no knowledge of its accuracy, I don't feel I can. If someone can get access to any of the books listed in the references to check the reliability? I might just be being a wimp and others may feel we can AGF?
  • New – Article created on the 12th Nov.
  • Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters.
  • Within policy – The article appears neutral, it has inline citations and I cannot find any copyright violations.
  • Hook - It is fewer than 200 characters, it is interesting and the article contains inline citations to evidence its accuracy.
  • QPQ – Done.
Interesting article and lots of wiki links - Nice work Georgejdorner! ツStacey (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Request made for second opinion, preferably by someone knowledgeable in the subject area. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I could do as much of the review as George Stacey has done above but will second his her request that someone actually check the offline sources for something this one. The only topical online source (this report on SIGMA I & II-67) says absolutely nothing except that there was "a game like this" in 1962. That doesn't refute the article but has absolutely nothing about the name, result, scope, &c. of the '62 game, which should be verified. — LlywelynII 13:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Wow, it took me weeks to locate the above online source while I was working on the Sigma war games series; I'm impressed. However, as nominator, I am not the one requesting a second review. My cautionary note in the nomination is aimed at preventing false calls of copyvio.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Don't be too impressed. I just used the one you'd already found from the article. : ) And it is a great source: just not for this article in particular. — LlywelynII 03:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Refs #9-11 discuss Sigma I-62. The other refs are there to support the war game background. If it helps: this is ref #10. I could only find snippet views of the other two. Maybe if the nominator could quote some passages, we can go on AGF? Fuebaey (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg "Refs #9-11 discuss Sigma I-62": It's great you found the Google Books link. I included that in the article. That said, no, for something like this that might turn into a Scopes-style urban legend, Stacey and I are saying we should be more careful that we're actually reporting what the sources say. The source you linked, e.g., does not say what the article claimed it was saying: it said (in the game) that winning involved a large enough US involvement that (in the game) the PRC would involve itself and that would require "changing the U.S. political objectives in Vietnam". It is the source of one of the article's quotes (so I moved it to the right place), but that does not say US intervention would be "unsuccessful" and (for a variety of reasons) the game itself was completely wrong about PRC involvement, which passes unnoticed in the article. The snippets I could get from Vietnam-on-the-Potomac for "Sigma I-62" start on 93 (not 92) and say things like "Very little documentation concerning this particular game is available", not "we should have known better ZOMG". Searches for snippets on "unsuccessful" + "game" didn't pan. Searches for any snippets on the game in Back Fire were unsuccessful.

    No offense at all to the authors and/or nom, but we really, really should have someone go find these books and not just pass this one on GF. (It's not a "no", though: emended to "again" marks. A section about gameplay reworked from your source could also create viable ALT hooks: ... mistakenly thought US involvement in Vietnam would trigger a Chinese intervention? &c.) — LlywelynII 03:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    No offense taken. I am presently rechecking my sources, in the interests of accuracy.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Warner reference (#11) establishes the date of the Tonkin Gulf incident. The Ball reference (#10) seems to be the still questionable one. I have access to Ball through Interlibrary Loans, and I am recalling it through ILL to check that cite. I would like to thank all involved for their patience and diligence in this matter.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 14[edit]

Main Central Thrust

Created/expanded by Hongcheng Guo (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 19:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

  • This really needs some sort of indication of what this article is about in the hook. I still don't really understand it after reading the lede. The article needs a though our copyedit as well, but that is not a DYK issue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Graeme Bartlett, this appears to be a significant issue. Please address it as soon as possible; it's been eleven days without a response. Also, if the article needs a thorough copyedit, it is a DYK issue despite what Maury said: I just read the lede and it is incomprehensible, and as such has no business being linked to on the main page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the lede and am copyediting. I will make a new hook for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Hi Graeme, it's been nearly two weeks now. Any news on this nomination? Fuebaey (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the Main Central Thrust extends 2200 km along the Himalaya mountain belt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talkcontribs) 01:43, 21 January 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that a new hook has been proposed, and the article has been copyedited. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Pilbara Craton

Moved to mainspace by Ebuhyo1 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 07:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, and appears to be free from copyright violations and close paraphrasing. However, I'm unsure of where this idea of "3.6 billion year old Earth's crust" comes from, reading the article. I think that this could be made clear in the article, or a different hook may be required. Also, a QPQ review is now required for every nomination after someone's fifth nomination, after a recent RfC resulting in this change in rules. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That QPQ rule came into effect on 20th November, but this was nominated before. I have added one from my recent reviews for you to appreciate! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't notice that. QPQ done. Symbol question.svg However, I am still unsure about this idea of "3.6 billion year old Earth's crust". Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was trying to simplify the writing so that the average person could understand. The section it comes from is Granitic Domes and Greenstone Belts, but 3.6 is an approximation for the range given. Ga = gigaannum = billion years ago. Do you think the hook need to be more precise? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Thine Antique Pen: Care to finish this review? Fuebaey (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm afraid that I'm going to have to request another reviewer. I'm worried about the unreferenced sections, and would not be willing to tick this article without these sections being referenced. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been trying to improve referencing. But the last section is a bit of a summary and opinion. Perhsp it needs trimming! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been 13 days, and the last section remains unreferenced. Graeme Bartlett, the nomination cannot pass while this remains the case, no matter who reviews it. If you want to trim the section and reference what remains, that's fine, but please do something soon to bring the article into line with DYK requirements. There's no point in calling for a new reviewer until you do. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And what about sourcing for the Granitic Domes and Greenstone Belts section? There's material there not covered in the ensuing subsections, some of which is in also mentioned in the lede. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 15[edit]

Metamorphic facies of subduction zones

Created by Eleanor W Smith (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article was moved to mainspace two days before nom so it passes "newness" requirement. Article is long enough and doesn't have apparent copyvios or neutrality problems. The main hook is 115 and ALT1 is 135. The main hook seems to be an amalgam of two different sentences in the lede so I'm not sure it's accurate. I also don't have access to the cited book. ALT1 seems to derive from an unsourced assertion also in the lede. ALT1 also oversimplifies what the article is about so I wouldn't support it, anyway. QPQ is yet to be done, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Ok. QPQ is done. Citation was added and it supports ALT1, so I'm striking the main hook. I'll withdraw my complaint about the oversimplification in the interests of progress. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg - ALT 1 doesn't appear to make sense. It has caused debate in our household for suggestions of what it could mean and how to change it! As we couldn't reach consensus, could the nominator (Graeme Bartlett) or reviewer (Chris troutman) please have a look and change/ remove the words causing confusion? ツStacey (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I added ALT2 with clearer wording. That the hook makes sense is not criteria for this task. Any cited nonsense that's short enough is typically fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT2. (Struck ALT1 due to previous objections.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Deicke and Millbrig Bentonite Layers

Moved to mainspace by T.J.Hebert (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Symbol delete vote.svg It's been two months since the nomination and nominator has not done his promised QPQ, I don't think he should have forever. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not even have to do one! However I have now done 2011 Minnesota state government shutdown specifically fr this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you had to do one or not, when you said you would, you incurred a moral obligation to do so in a reasonable period of time. I am thankful that you have now; it shouldn't have taken this note on my part to have goaded you into doing so. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. Note to Daniel Case: the requirement of QPQs for non-self-nominations did not take effect until November 21, 2014; a QPQ was not needed for this nomination, made days before the change, though Graeme Bartlett is to be commended for providing one anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
See my reply above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 17[edit]

Robert Simpson (athlete)

Created by Sideways713 (talk). Self nominated at 14:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

  • He ran under the high what? I'm not kidding -- I don't understand what that means. EEng (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Under the old world record (15.0 seconds) for the 120 yard hurdles (an event also known as the high hurdles, due to being the race with the highest hurdles). I'll be happy if you can suggest a more accessible wording; I can't think of one for this hook fact.
    Maybe a different hook fact could be used, for example:
Sideways713 (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, but can we please stop having hooks that jumble together unrelated information? OK, so he studied at Missouri -- is that interesting because people from Missouri are widely regarded as unable to run and jump? (God, I'm really a grump today.) How about his gold medals? That he coached all over the world? That he served in both world wars (not related to his athletics, but interesting on its own). EEng (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Let's try a clarification of the original hook, shall we?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that Robert Simpson broke the old high hurdles world record seven times in one year?
  • I came by to review this and saw 89 footnotes staring back at me. There is no need to have multiple citations to regional newspapers, which are probably picking up the same wire feed, on a short, straightforward bio like this. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Okay, so 89 references might be a lot, but I'd far rather see too many references than too few. ALT3 is approved: it is appropriately referenced inline to an online source, and is simple to understand, and interesting. The article is general is plenty long enough, and was nominated soon enough after creation. I obviously have not checked all 89 references for copyvio, but those spotchecks that I have carried out reveal no evidence of any. Good to go. I have struck the older hooks. Harrias talk 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 29[edit]

International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

5x expanded by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 06:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I moved the nomination from 6 December to 29 November, where the expansion started, although you started editing it on 28 November, a day before. Nevertheless, the nomination is within seven-day limit in my eyes. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose this nomination. The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children is a self-seeking lobbyist group with dubious aims, and the idea that a weasely-worded claim as outrageous as "8 million children disappear each year worldwide, with 800,000 going missing in the US alone" should be entered as a DYK is appalling. The words "child", "disappear" and "going missing" are all kept deliberately vague in this tabloid-style headline-like claim. For example, in most countries "child" does not mean a 17 or 18-year old, but in US data it does. Also, these figures are NOT individuals, they are reports filed - so they can concern cases of the same person "going missing" multiple times. The claim weasely and deliberately tries to make out that in the US each year 800,000 separate children have "gone missing" and that "gone missing" equates to "disappeared" for ever (rather than someone just missing an afternoon from school for whatever reason and being reported "missing" by teachers because that is what the authorities are required to report and state). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
BTW, the whole article is a mess and needs to be looked at in detail by a third party. Much of the recent Epeefleche added content is troubling, and includes what I consider to be particularly nasty blp violations. Content has also been given sources that do not actually support that content. See the article talk page. Also, I have already pointed out failings in the "8 million children disappear...." claim, but look at the sources used to justify the claim in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources - and I would have expected detailed research data from neutral sources to support such a claim. However, two of the sources used for it are very low grade, with one appearing to be derived from ICMEC press releases. The third source is usually OK as a source but not for something this specialised and again seems to use a lot of unsourced ICMEC claims. Another source, cited elsewhere in the article, seems good and neutral [3], but is US-only data and gives all the qualifications for "going missing" that I explained earlier, qualifications that are not revealed in the headline-grabbing "800,0000". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg ok - size and expansion qualify - still looking. stuff does need doing though, see article talk. (placeholder) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I've acted on suggestions, and responded accordingly at your posts there. Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I cannot quickly find evidence that these statistics are controversial, but I think the hook needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the center itself is the source of the numbers. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Open to suggestions; thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a complicated situation. First of all, the article does need a good going over for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the distinctly promotional flavor -- as far as I can see there's no criticism mentioned at all, which I find surprising. As to the statistics, they don't just come from the Center (see Table 3 of [7]) and believe it or not they aren't inflated, once you understand the definitions involved -- basically any time a caregiver doesn't know where a kid (under 18) is for at least an hour, and is distressed about it, that counts as "kid was missing" -- this includes kid got off at wrong bus stop and got lost on way home, kid went to friend's house and forgot to tell parents, Timmy fell in the well but Lassie was on strike for better veterinary benefits, etc. But given the way most people naturally interpret the term "missing" this is highly misleading without more qualification than may be possible in the space available for a hook. (All the foregoing applies to the US stats -- I suspect the worldwide number is pure guesswork.) EEng (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Am still looking at it with notes on article talk. Just got busy with some RL stuff....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there an independent research source for the "8 million children disappear each year worldwide" statement? I have not found one. A number or sources say that the statement comes from the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (for example, see [8] "Around 8 million children go missing around the world every year, according to the International Centre for missing and exploited children", and [9] "It has been estimated that at least eight (8) million children go missing each year (International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, 2013)". Does their literature mention third-party research papers or projects or external sources that would indicate where the organization got the figure from? Even if the figure is not the "pure guesswork" that EEng suspects, can it be in a DYN without it being shown there is some research behind the figure? Also, what substantive connection is there between the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children and the 800,000 cases mentioned in the NISMART US data? Given that "missing" means so many things, what percentage of those 800,000 cases would fall under the remit of ICMEC's concerns? 1% of them? 0.1% of them? If the connection is that minimal, is there a justification for mentioning the figure in relation to ICMEC? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah am not keen on using the 8 million figure in the hook unless there is a better reference. Not hugely fussed about the other, though the data is old and given the definition in the study, it shows that the definition is very broad, and hence the "800,000 missing" is not really 800,000 missing....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Addressed on article talkpage (per wp:RS, the high-level independent secondary sources we have ... Wall Street Journal, BBC, etc. ... are the Wikipedia gold standard; not primary sources). Epeefleche (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review required. Nominator requesting another opinion. Fuebaey (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I can't really accept the figures. The BBC source says "it is thought (my emphasis) at least eight million children go missing". That's not a strong enough convincing claim in itself, I would want to see something like "a [insert major international case report here] demonstrated between 'x' and 'y' children go missing each year in the US, though [counterpoint]". The phrase "a number of law and policy tools" through to "the Child Pornography Model Legislation" paraphrases the original source (check) a bit too closely; it's not a substantial or blatant copyvio but still means its worth a check over in this area. To end on a positive note, let me suggest ALT1 : ... that the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children was instrumental in publicizing the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richie. The Wall Street Journal ref directly supports the statement. It says, in its lead sentence: "It is estimated that some 8 million children go missing around the world each year and, in the U.S., a quarter of the roughly 800,000 children reported missing are taken by a family member." Melanie Grayce West (May 25, 2012). "Pooling Resources to Fight Child Abuse and Abduction". The Wall Street Journal.
WP:RS calls for us to base wp text "on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Wall Street Journal is certainly a high-level RS.
Furthermore,WP:RS states that it prefers that we rely on secondary sources (such as the WSJ). Stating: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". And not on primary sources such as the "international case report" you are seeking. WP:RS states: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Having followed this for some time, it seems to me that we could come up with some hook that is about the centre itself, rather than something that comes across as something of an advertisement. It seems to me, for isntance, that something could be said instead about its connections with the UN and INTERPOL. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Mangoe. I think this hook is hookier than anything I could think of -- saying "is connected with the UN", for example, seems quite unhooky. Though I'm happy to hear suggestions. But I don't think this is at all an ad -- the fact (which is IMHO hooky) is the number of children reported missing ... which is not a function of an effort or accomplishment by the Centre. And it is reported on by the WSJ, among others. And wp:RS prefers we uses secondary sources for such information, rather than primary sources ... and the WSJ is a fine secondary source RS. Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That said, since unlike wp:rs some editors prefer primary sources over the WSJ, we could go with a hook of ALT2 : ... that the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children tries to help find missing children, millions of whom disappear each year worldwide, with 800,000 going missing in the US alone? Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 3[edit]

Stripped Classicism

  • ... that Stripped Classicism is an architectural style used by the USA, Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR?
  • ALT1:... that Stripped Classicism is a 20th Century architectural style frequently employed by governments worldwide while designing official buildings?
  • ALT2:... that in Europe early examples of Stripped Classicism, a 20th Century architectural design style, established models for the classical purity aspired to by high modernists of modern architecture?
  • Reviewed: Angharad ferch Owain

Created by Carptrash (talk), 7&6=thirteen (talk), Ghirlandajo (talk), Nsteffel (talk and Lockley (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk) at 14:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg It is good to see an article on this topic. It has the potential to be a great article one day. Currently it bears some marks of haste but for the purposes of DYK, it is new enough, long enough and the QPQ checks out. It is neutral, with refs.

I make a few suggestions here before it goes to DYK. I would like to see it better represent its own claims and also be a bit better set up for its future expansion. At the moment it is rather essay-like and hard for a reader to grasp the idea of the style's chronology or development. For example, the "Description and history" section could be separated into two sections - one "Description" and another "Usage" so that readers can get into what defines it before going on to how it has been used and adapted. Maybe "Geographical spread" would be a useful section. I guess that such sections would develop in time as would the table of "Notable Examples" which might eventually have to be split off, although that's in the future.

However, given the description in the text of the global spread of this style, the table is too restricted. It presents only US examples in only one decade. Even at this stage, the table ought to represent the range given in the article. Choose a few examples from different parts of the world and different decades. I also think the two notes could be incorporated into the text, they seem to be essential parts of the explanation.

I hope you do not think these suggestions are onerous and can make them as improvements - the encyclopedia needs this article. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We all are working on this. Get back to you. Thanks for the thorough review. 7&6=thirteen () 02:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest adding "the governments of" to the question if it fits. The term "stripped classical" is not used all that much, so while I can easily identify a variety of buildings in different countries as fitting, it is more difficult to find a reference for that. Otherwise we risk having the twin charges of opinion and original research leveled against us. Perhaps that is just a chance we need to take? Einar akaCarptrash (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@7&6=thirteen: Coming on three weeks since this was last reviewed - any progress on this nom? Fuebaey (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Last call ladies and gentleman. Last call. @Carptrash, Whiteghost.ink, Ghirlandajo, Nsteffel, Lockley, 7&6=thirteen: PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Carptrash, Whiteghost.ink, Ghirlandajo, Nsteffel, Lockley, 7&6=thirteen: Panyd I think it is reasonably good to go. I don't know what you want. Maybe it isn't yet a WP:GA, but it should easily qualify for a WP:DYK. I've put back some stuff on my talk page that User:Haspajen suggested. If you can tell us what it is that you still need, we will try to comply. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 17:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Go Nawaz Go (slogan)

  • ... that Go Nawaz Go is a controversial Pakistani chant against current Pakistani Prime Minister and become huge popular in short time?

Created by Saqib (talk). Self nominated at 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Hook and newness checked. Length is without a doubt ok. But can you give a context for what "short span of time" mean? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
User:BlueMoonset: See history. I've fixed it a long time ago. --Saqib (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Saqib, so you know in future, you need to report progress here at the nomination after an issue is raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including such checks as close paraphrasing and neutrality, which were not mentioned in the initial review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The article could also use a copyedit for English grammar. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 5[edit]

Cyclone Nigel, Cyclone Eric

  • Comment: If possible it would be great to have this up on the main page during January as we look at the 30th anniversary of the systems.

Created by Jason Rees (talk). Self nominated at 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I am not sure that 2 reviews are needed since nothings happened to Eric yet, in order to make it eligible for a full blown DYK unless im missing something.Jason Rees (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Jason Rees, you included both Eric and Nigel in your original nomination as articles being nominated, though you didn't format the hook with any bold links as required for nominated articles. It appears that Graeme Bartlett naturally thought this meant they both needed to be bolded in the hook, and fixed it accordingly. Now that I look at Eric, it's over a year and a half old, and your recent edits have left the size basically unchanged, so it's clearly not eligible for DYK as part of this nomination, which can therefore only include Nigel. I've just revised the hook to reflect that—I reversed the order of the names so Nigel comes first and Eric is a normal wikilink, not a bolded nominated article link. It does mean that you'll still need to supply one QPQ review for Nigel, however, so you'll want to get right on that, especially if you want this to run in January, which is only six days away. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Bluemoonset is correct, the hook before I edited it had no links or bold. Both articles were listed in the template, and I did not check for any DYK requirements before formatting it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Im really not bothered about what happened as it kinda gave me some motivation to try and get both articles up to GA by the time of the anniversary. Anyway i briefly reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto V (re-release) earlier today.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Jason Rees, "brief" reviews do not count. A full review, covering the DYK criteria, must be completed by you. (I've posted more details at the nomination you looked at earlier.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith when i say it was all checked by me using the DYK tool and my own eyes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. Note that Cyclone Nigel is the only article under consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 7[edit]

Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act

Created by N2e (talk). Self nominated at 04:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Article needs a lot of work, especially in that it makes it sound this is actually going to happen. EEng (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, "take back" may be inaccurate, as the federal government may have owned the land before Utah was a state. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Might I suggest something along the lines of "passed a bill staking legal claim," which might be a trifle dull, but sticks to the facts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The words pretends or purports might help here too, as in "The bill purports to do such and such". EEng (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved the nomination to December 7, the date of creation. Fortunately, the nomination is within seven-day limit. George Ho (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've struck all three ALT hooks as they're now in the past, and the original hook because of Antony-22's objections. It sounds like there are issues with the article as well that need to be addressed, as well as a need for at least one new hook, before the nomination can proceed. Since the December 31 deadline has passed, the article should at least make mention of the current status of these lands: any 2015 actions taken by the state or by the feds. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've attempted to add some additional hook candidates, per the request of BlueMoonset on 8 Jan 2015.

However, it appears that several who left comment above may want to discuss the content of the article itself, or whether the statements made in prose within the article are supported by sources. I believe they are. And they have withstood critical review in the article space for over a month now. Seems to me that we should be discussing this on the article Talk page, not here; so I will be happy to respond to specific issues brought up on that Talk page, on that Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that new hooks have been proposed; issues raised before should be considered as part of it. (I moved the "replacement" original hook to the beginning of the new ALTs, which have been renumbered, and added "?" to the end of all the new hooks, and a missing "wants" in what is now ALT7.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset, for helping clean up a few details today, and for your work shepherding this through the DYK process in the first place. I agree that a full review is needed, since the hooks were changed, for the reasons articulated above. N2e (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 10[edit]

Hotesur scandal

Created by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 12:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is well sourced, but there are a few problems. It lacks dates. It would be great to know how long it took for the whole thing to unravel. When was the TV show first aired? Also, I have a question regarding some (possibly) POV wording, such as "The main strategy of the government..." According to whom? The opposition? The media? Political commentators? --Երևանցի talk 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I have added the dates. The program was aired in November 9, the formal denounce was made on November 10, and the search and seizure was done 10 days later. As for the wording, "strategy" is just one way to word it, like any other else; I'm open to alternative wordings if there is a better one. It is completely obvious that the government is not making all those denounces from out of the blue, but as a response against this. The Wall Street Journal, La Nación (a newspaper of record from Argentina) and El País from Spain (see here, I have yet to incorporate this reference to the article), all understand it that way, and describe the conflict that way. Consider for instance the sanction against Bonadio. Yes, he's sanctioned for some unrelated case; but immediately after this whole thing. And even more, those who are not aligned with the government pointed that the complains against Bonadio have expired, that unrelated case is not a modern one. What does it mean? That they did not consider that case at its proper moment, either to accept or dismiss the charges against Bonadio, but left the case open, to "punish" Bonadio if something like this ever happened. Cambalachero (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yerevantsi: Care to continue this review? Fuebaey (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'd prefer someone else review it. --Երևանցի talk 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 11[edit]

Humboldtian education ideal

Jürgen Habermas
Humboldt-University 1850
Wilhelm von Humboldt
  • ALT 4: ... within 16 months a privy councellor in the Prussian ministry of interior used the Humboldtian model of higher education to become the most influential education official in German history?
  • Reviewed: Quid pro quo done with my previous account. Take Chateaubriand sauce
  • Comment: The funny thing is that one still may find major and highly important topics (Humboldts ideals were of importance for universities globally, including the US Ivy league) which have not yet being dealt with in Wikipedia at all. So far the German and Scandinavian interwikis linked to Humboldtian science, which is a family business (by the education Humboldts brother) but a complete different story.

Created by Serten II (talk), Hafspajen (talk). Nominated by Serten II (talk) at 11:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Sorry, but the article needs a good copyedit. I made a few but got stuck on this, "He tried to strengthen science aims at providing intellectually fascinating results and benefitting society via them long term and did not aim for quick measurable results." The sentence may be grammatically correct (though I am not sure how) and without having the source I can't tweak it. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Why havent you read Antti Hautamäkis blog which is to be found under the weblinks, just google may have provided something like The ‘Idea of a University’ today? Hanfspajen and I know what we are talking and writing about, the humboldtian ideal was such a central gamechanger for the History of European research universities that we - maybe under the spell of Humboldt himself - in writing the article may have gone into poetic mode ;) Serten II (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That may be so--but you're not writing for an audience of poets... Look, I'm trying to help you. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Your help being appreciated - I changed the wording. I expect DYK to be a fun game and no GA or FA level issue however, and some areas of WP I recently edited direly need some poets and more of the Humboldtian approach towards humanities. Serten II (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am a humanities scholar, so that works, but that doesn't prevent me from being a very strict proofreader. I will pitch in to help when I can. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg New (11th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check. A noble effort, but there are many issues. First, yes, this type of thing is normally described in flowery, poetic language, but that isn't encyclopedic language. Readers come to WP to cut through the poetic language. There isn't a clear sense of what exactly this ideal is from the article. Second, the article doesn't actually say what the ideal entails. It vaguely sets up what it may be in the lede, doesn't explain it there, and doesn't explain it in the first section because it's assumed to be covered in the lede. (The lede should be a summary of the prose, so it should actually be explained in both the lede and that first section.) The QPQ is not a full review, so I don't believe it counts as a QPQ. The image is not described with "(pictured)" in the hook, and I'm not sure how it relates. Lastly, I'm with Drmies in that this article needs a full copyedit. It's not the easiest of topics to tackle in the first place, but it's important that it actually handle the material lucidly. I can't even help with this because so many of the sources are offline! Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Since Drmies first comment, a lot of copyediting has happened, take @Hafspajen: @Yngvadottir:. I doubt being "flowery" may be deemed as being "not" serious, Humboldt allowing students to choose flowery topics laid ground to tekkie playgrounds as nuclear fission and rocket science. The lede "seeks a holistic combination of research and academic education, combining the arts and sciences" is a definition, its being explained by the principles of the Berlin university. user:czar, if you base your review on the first version of the article, just read it again. I am not willing to go for a GA level here or, as in the case of the Chateaubriand review, which was a review, to accept higher stakes. This is DYK. Most of the sources "are" online, and there is much more available. I ask to forward the article. Serten II (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Does the definition really get no more specific than that? My review was based on the current version of the article. czar  07:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Does it have to? As said, its a flowery topic and Humboldt's responisibility for education took only some months. You ask for a false positive and I won't produce it. As said, its a DYK proposal. Serten II (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess we have try to sort out the issues raised. DYK is a tricky thing and the demands are higher and higher for every day, I am affraid. Yngvadottir will you help with the language? Serten is German, I am Swedish. I am affraid that we might need help. Or from an editor like Gerda Arendt who can read the German sources and is an experienced DYK-er. Hafspajen (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[1]
Added (pictured) - since nobody wanted to help with such a simple task either. Hafspajen (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Added English references, tried to explain on a more common level. Hafspajen (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Ideally, I should have more time. Nominated an article yesterday (!), have to deal with requests, not speaking of a promised explanation and "my" articles. Try without me or wait, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As said, Czar, if you want a featured entry about the topic, no prob, hundreds of books and studies, its all there, start writing it, but thats nothing to bother around at DYK. I wont't redraw the nomination or call the firefighters again (which have been there before), I ask to modify the review. Serten II (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt - IF YOU CAN TAKE THIS, WILL BE JUST E´WONDERFUL. wE ARE CERTAINLY HAVE NO ISSUES WAITING. (Sorry it went caplock) Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
* Nice to have you shouting ;) Yep, we are happy to wait. Serten II (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC) [2]Serten II (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ [I actually find this disturbing - it is not any more a cooperative effort but a place with extremly high demands. Way to high sometimes, I think. And no help to get from reviwers, only demands and criticism. Before people helped each other to put the articles in shape. The last rewiev I made I had no issues helping the editor with his article, but I am affraid those are passed times for most people here nowadays. I actually stopped nominating my new articles because I find these demands raised at DYK much too hig sometimes, it is really not good article's that are nominated. Only ordinary articles that people might like to read. My last seven articles I created I did NOT nominated it here anymore.]
  2. ^ I just registered, that the Humboldt article describes him as "minister of education" - he never was, but why bother about basic facts in articles if we can play Stadler-and-Waldorf on DYK ;)
  • On the indomitable hand-wringing, I actually offered to help, but said that the sources were offline and not in my language. (For what it's worth, I saw more sources under the Humboldtian "model" than "ideal".) Moreover, I'm not even holding you to anything rigorous—this is basic DYK criteria. The article I read was impossible to parse—that's minimum legibility, not "featured" article requirements or "high demands". Adding "(pictured)" as currently in the hook makes little sense because that image is not an image of the ideal but of a university. It needs to be more specific about the relation, which is why I didn't "simply" add it myself. Have a little faith in the DYK process. czar  17:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For what its worth, the pic is about the first University built along Humboldts ideal - call it the model, if you like, but better start reading the article or get a basic picture of the topic before you write a review. Serten II (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you requesting another reviewer? Because I said I read the article. czar  19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Czar, I had one or two bad experience lately. I withdrawn several nominations too, because of this. It is nothing personal against you. did you noticed the latest changes? Added references in English, rather a lot of them. Hafspajen (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I did, but it still reads rather jumbly and in need of a copyedit. Also don't feel compelled to change the sources to English—non-English are really fine, but I just won't be able to check them if they're inaccessible to me. As for the intro, perhaps the sources don't lay it out clearly enough but, at least in the lede, it would be good to start with a firm definition about what this ideal is and perhaps an example of how it was interpreted and said to be put into action. Haven't seen the other noms you mention, but it might make future noms go smoother to have someone copyedit or otherwise check them in draftspace before taking them to DYK. I know topics like this aren't exactly the easiest to translate into English either. czar  22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You have a point, the hook as it looks now should have a picture of Haberman ... Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
A photo of Habermas would seem to be much more relevant, absolutely czar  22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I looked once and don't see the article name supported by sources, looking at the first two. "Humboldt's idea of a university" seems closer. I would like sources properly formatted: no bare url, title, date or access date, where available author and publisher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Format refs - we will. Humboldtian education ideal - that can't be changed. It is what it's called. Unfortunate that the first two refs mentioned it this way, but I added loads of references quite recently and in a great hurry. Just keep on reading, and all will be revealed. What we need is copy-editing, I never said new reviewer, I think Czar put a lot of work into this, it would be unfair. But copyediting that - we do need, to satisfy his demands... Hafspajen (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Its not easy at all to translate "Humboldtsches Bildungsideal". I agree with some of the points after reading the current version myself ;) Point is, we should be fair to reviewed and reviewers at DYK. I would like to have a sort of "Wait and see" Button here, that would allow articles which develope quickly to be presented here in due time but would reduce the sort of unhappiness coming from discussions like this. Serten II (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We should not translate, but use what sources say, then perhaps add a literal translation. If sources say nothing we should use the German original. What sources say is more obvious when the refs are formatted ;) - I hope I don't add to unhappiness here. I like clarification that deserves the name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think I can fix the refs, you Germans fix the title ... and hope sombody will copyedit. I just want to add that I did found LOADS of references calling it in English Humboldtian education ideal. Even if the first two mention it differently. Hafspajen (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hm, so now the title is in German? That is a surprize. I think I preferred it in English, rather. Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that Jürgen Habermas was an active promoter of Wilhelm von Humboldt's 19th-century concept of holistic academic education called Humboldtsches Bildungsideal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a few questions about clarity and legibility for DYK, and one last one about verifiability in general. (1) Why isn't there a clear and direct articulation of what the tenets of the ideal are? Additionally, it would help to have some frame of reference for how it compared with other universities before/after. (2) What is the difference between the "ideal" and the "model"? I see plenty of sources for the "model" but next to nothing for an "ideal" other than that it's the direct translation of the term. (3) I'm still seeing major copy issues, such as, "The Humboldtian concept of education asks for autonomous and independent research, no matter of the funding, and requires science and teaching to keep up with the frf reontiers osearch, that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential and that there should be close contact between teacher and student." Essentially, it's hard to follow along if I'm reading it out loud to myself. (4) With the hooks, "revolutionary education concept" is an exceptional claim and I don't see where it's sourced in the article. Similarly, the claim "most influential" means nothing on its own and needs to include the name of the source to qualify the opinion. I'm guessing it's not Berglar's determination either. (5) The refs to dictionary definitions of "freethinker", "free thought"—what are they doing? They apparently have nothing to do with claims about Humboldt. Some other sentences are sourced to entire books, which makes it impossible for me to attempt to verify. Do you have page numbers? czar  22:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Humboldt had a) (ideal) an ideal and b) (role model) founded a real life university with the most prestigeous appointment list of brilliant scholars any German Minister of education ever had. The superlative is appropriate. and confirmed. I shortened some clumsy sentences. Hafspajen may kill me later for cutting down on the flowery aspectSerten II (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Serten that sentence "The Humboldtian concept of education asks for autonomous and independent research, no matter of the funding, and requires science and teaching to keep up with the frf reontiers osearch, that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential and that there should be close contact between teacher and student." was you doing. I wrote that slightly differently. I think we sould ask Yngvadottir to give a hand, because the above is rather valid. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This WAS my lead: (UNCE UPON A TIME):The Humboldtian education ideal.[1] seeks a holistic combination of research and academic education, combining the arts and sciences, alongside with the acquisition of comprehensive general learning and cultural knowledge. The Humboldtian education ideal's came from Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 –1835) a German (Prussian) philosopher, government functionary and diplomat. Humboldt has been deemed the most influential education official in German history. He became famous for reforming the Prussian school and university system according to humanist principles and for appointing a unique list of scholars. Humboldt strived to create an educational system based on knowledge and insight pure and unbiased, combining research and studies and allowing students to choose their own curriculum. He was the founder of the University of Berlin, later named after him and his brother, naturalist Alexander von Humboldt.[2][3][4][5]

Humboldt believed that teaching should be based on research, while research should unbiased and independent, be free from state, politics, ideological influences or economical, political or religious interests. The Humboldtian education ideal strives for unconditional academic freedom in the intellectual investigation of the world, belives that studies should be characterized by humanistic ideals, and free thought, while knowledge should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or dogmas.[6][7][8]

The Humboldtian concept of education is based beside the ideal of autonomous and independent research, no matter who is finacing the project, that science and teaching should keep up with the last research, that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential and that there should be close contact between teacher and student. These ideas were playing a vital role in developing a tolerant European society, alongside with the liberal ideals that prized important individual freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and of association, an independent judiciary and public trial by jury. The Humboldtian education ideal's cultural-historical background was based on the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt, which answered the demands of the Prussian bourgeoisie for enhanced general knowledge, (Allgemeinbildung), the general education and knowledge to generate a new knowledge society during the Prussian reforms of the early 19th century. [9][10][11][12][13]

  1. ^ "Matematikcentrum, Lunds Universiy". ctr.maths.lu.se. 
  2. ^ "Humboldt's educational ideal and modern academic education". www.drc.uns.ac.rs/presentations. 
  3. ^ "the-idea-of-a-university-today". www.historyandpolicy.org. 
  4. ^ "free-education-pipe-dream". www.voxeurop.eu. 
  5. ^ "wilhelm-humboldt". plato.stanford.edu. 
  6. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freethinker
  7. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+thought
  8. ^ "Humboldt's educational ideal and modern academic education". www.drc.uns.ac.rs/presentations. 
  9. ^ "wilhelm-von-humboldts-idee-der-universitaet". aka-blaetter.de. Retrieved 2014. 
  10. ^ "Humboldtian education ideal". www.oxfordscholarship.com. 
  11. ^ [freedom of study for students (Lernfreiheit, contrasted with the prescriptive curricula of the French system)]
  12. ^ "Humboldtian education ideal". www.donau-uni.ac.at. Retrieved 2014. 
  13. ^ "Humboldtian ideal". www.universitypressscholarship.com. Retrieved 2014. 
Comment: careful with German sources and their translated terms. They translate "Stadt" to "city" whatever size, "Evangelisch" to "Evangelical" and "Schloss" to "castle", - in short: often misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Hafspajen: - I have tried to downsize the lede and to reduce doublings and overlong sentences, but I have had a slight problem with "These ideas were playing a vital role in developing a tolerant European society" - youre Swedes kept neutral since you helped to found the Gustav-Adolf-Werk, but Europe, and especially Germans have been less than tolerant since (; Lets discuss content on the talk page, OK?, I am lost here. @NewsAndEventsGuy:, @Gerda Arendt: the name discussion has been lead here so far. Lets move that to the talk page as well. Serten II (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, just tried to make the lead clear, per WP:Lead, so it can give a concise summary, the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies -and the rest could be academic and so. That tolerant European society - well, maybe as you say. But that's just one thing. Hafspajen (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Moved again:

The article is much improved, but I still see copy issues. There are a number of really awkward sentences, outstanding claims without direct citations (e.g, that the Univ of Berlin was universally regarded as the model institution of the 1800s), and unattributed claims (as mentioned above, but that the list of appointments was "proud" cannot be a blanket truth and is according to whom?) Additionally, while I do think switching from "ideal" to "model" was the right choice based on the sources, I'm seeing a scope issue. The article is a mishmash of snippets from Humboldt's philosophy, his influence in the Univ of Berlin, and the influence of the "German model". What parts of this article are a summary style expansion from Humboldt's own and what parts are cobbling together a fork of several others (history of Euro research univ, Humboldt, etc.)? This is to ask how the "Humboldt model" is distinguished from the "German model", which has many more sources written about it, and of which Humboldt's influence is just a component. Additionally, the original QPQ full review is not resolved (needs to be more than just leaving an icon and brief comment on a page but an actual review of a hook's criteria) and the original hooks need work (per some of the comments I made about them above) in order to be considered. czar  11:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

All other hooks would need to be reworded, as they use a name which is not the article title nor a good translation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think I just give up. Hafspajen (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Serten II, are you withdrawing the nom? czar  22:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I never give up but I doubt this discussion is about DYK. First there are complaints about ofline xources, now about online sources (snippets). Of cause the article has to involve Humboltd's philosophy - he used it for the concept. If you don't want the article, since articles about creeks in canada are less boring or so muchmore important for the majn page, start telling us from the start. This sort of commenting is neither helpful nor does it allow any reasonable improvement. And as said, it has nothing to do with dyk. . Serten II (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There's been a whole lot more complaining than improving. The relevant DYK policy is #3 "within policy", as in meeting core guidelines, which this article does not for reasons I just described. The ongoing invocation of GA or FA standards is a smokescreen. The article still needs much work before it goes on the front page. Also that facetious Canadian creeks comment was unnecessary and needlessly insulting. I hope that your future DYK reviews will be more pleasant. czar  15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • czar, I really wasn't trying to offend you. You are so much better at articles than we are. At least, like I am, for sure. It will be difficult to raise to that level for us. Maybe it is simply under our capacity. Hafspajen (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I suggest a different reviewer looks at this also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Request a different reviewer. We are stucked. This is a simple article, we are not going for GA otr FA. It is only a DYK. And about hooks, please leave them, let the next reviewer chose. Some of them might be useful still. Let the next reviewer strike the one s/he chose. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You changed them, something I never do, because the following discussion often makes no more sense after a change. Instead of major a change (other than a typo or a comma), I word a new ALT. I also think it would be more attractive for a new reviewer not to have to look at six alternatives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
ps: the model is never pictured. In the first hook, it should be Habermas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg fine by me czar  15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 12[edit]

Delta Psi (University of Vermont)

Created by DocumentError (talk). Self nominated at 13:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Hmmm... I think there's a hook somewhere in the fact that one of its official colors is "Dregs of wine" -- yum! EEng (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Their parents must be so proud. EEng (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. (Note: nominator is currently blocked, but that's only an issue if problems are found.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 14[edit]


Nayanars worshipped in a temple

  • Comment: Pusalar and Anaya Nayanar are 5x (somwhere DYKcheck not showing it as 5x, please check manually). Rest are New. More articles are to be added in the hook in this week. Article start from 8-Dec.

Created/expanded by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 05:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC).

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Greek sentiment
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/El drama del 15 de octubre, Di Domenico brothers (2 articles)
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Land
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Bucko
  5. Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Christmas Island
  6. Template:Did you know nominations/Shang Qu
  7. Template:Did you know nominations/Hilja Riipinen
  8. Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Antonio Pérez Simón
  9. Template:Did you know nominations/Family of Bayinnaung
  10. Template:Did you know nominations/Teli ka Mandir
  11. Template:Did you know nominations/Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain
  12. Template:Did you know nominations/Gandhinagar (Lok Sabha constituency)
  13. Template:Did you know nominations/Oops! (film)
  14. Template:Did you know nominations/Zareh Sinanyan
  15. Template:Did you know nominations/Server Sundaram
  16. Template:Did you know nominations/Madame Clémentine Valensi Stora (L'Algérienne)
  17. Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Charles II, Soho Square
  18. Template:Did you know nominations/Storeton Hall
  19. Template:Did you know nominations/Blakumen
  20. Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Bartholomew Monastery
  21. Template:Did you know nominations/Amphianthus dohrnii (3 articles)
  22. Template:Did you know nominations/Mitchler Run, Shingle Run (Huntington Creek), Arnold Creek (Huntington Creek), Lick Branch, Phillips Creek (5 articles)
  23. Template:Did you know nominations/Beda people
  24. Template:Did you know nominations/Ram ke Naam
  25. Template:Did you know nominations/Uma Maheswaran
  26. Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Wills portrait
  27. Template:Did you know nominations/Charles DeWitt Watts
  28. Template:Did you know nominations/Jeong Seon
  29. Template:Did you know nominations/Vinnytsia II (single-mandate constituency)
  30. Template:Did you know nominations/Indian National Congress campaign for Indian general election, 2014
  31. Template:Did you know nominations/Swatantra 2014

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Waiting for other articles and QPQs, but I have decided to review some of the articles.
Vayilar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, long enough, hook contained in article and cited to an offline source. Passes copyvio checks (the tool brings up two Wikipedia mirrors on the same site, but that is about it). QPQ done (Anti-Greek sentiment). This one is fine.
Sakkiya: Symbol voting keep.svg article is new enough (8 December), long enough, and the hook fact is referenced in the article offline. Two Wikipedia mirrors are the only things that appear in the copyvio report. QPQ done (El drama del 15 de octubre).
Idangazhi: Symbol voting keep.svg Hook cited offline, AGF. Created on 8 December, meets length requirements easily. Copyvio report brings up two WP mirrors, seems fine. QPQ done (Di Domenico brothers).
Anaya Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Expansion requirements easily met, article expanded on 9 December. No copyvio issues. Hook cited offline. QPQ done (Animal Land).
Kalikamba Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Created 9 December, long enough, no copyright issues. Hook cited to an offline source. QPQ done (Bucko).
Kaliya Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Long enough, created 9 December, passes my copyright checks. The hook is cited to an offline source, and the QPQ is done (Flag of Christmas Island).
Satti Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Article created on 9 December, and meets length requirements. No copyright problems. Hook cited inline to an offline source. QPQ done (Shang Qu).
Pusalar: Symbol voting keep.svg Expansion done recently enough, easily meets 5x requirements. No copyvio. Hook is cited to an offline source. QPQ done (Hilja Riipinen).
Kungiliya Kalaya Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Created 10 December, well-written, meets length requirements for DYK. No copyright issues. Hook contained in the article and cited inline. QPQ done. (Juan Antonio Pérez Simón)
Sadaya Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Article made on 13 December, long enough, free of copyvio. Hook in article and cited to an offline source. QPQ done (Family of Bayinnaung).
Murthi Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Created 11 Dec, long enough, no copyvio issues, hook in article and cited offline. QPQ done (Teli ka Mandir).
Murkha Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg Created 12 December. 2970 chars long. No copyright problems. Hook contained in article, cited inline to an offline source. QPQ done (Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain)
Nami Nandi Adigal: Symbol voting keep.svg Made on 12 December, 4187 chars long, no copyright problems. Hook contained in article, cited offline. QPQ done (Gandhinagar (Lok Sabha constituency))
Symbol possible vote.svg The other articles in the hook currently (Somasi Mara Nayanar and Isaignaniyar) need QPQ reviews. However, as the nominator appears to want to to add more articles, I shall leave this nomination for these two and any others to be reviewed. The other articles appear to be fine, and meet DYK standards. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Thine Antique Pen for starting off the reviews. 7 more added. Manakanchara Nayanar, Enathinathar, Kotpuli is 5x (check manually, DYKcheck does not show 5x), others are New. I request you to wait till end of this week so that I can complete the the other articles and QPQs as well as add images from Flickr to the saint articles as well as image on the hook. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
32 articles nominated so far. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Please ping me when you wish me to review the rest. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thine Antique Pen, Thanks for keeping an eye on this. 33 articles so far. 31 QPQs. I plan to complete by Wed; 4 more articles to go. I will have add images and infoboxes, wherever possible by then. Thanks again for your patience. Will ping you. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Adding 4 more. Nandanar is 5x. Thine Antique Pen, 37 articles are done. I plan to add the LAST article on tomorrow's holy occasion as well as complete the pending QPQs and add the images to most of the articles. Thanks again for your patience. Since this is a long list, you may start reviewing. Merry Christmas to you and your family. God bless ! Redtigerxyz Talk 14:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll review those with QPQs. I began to look at some of these earlier, and just finished the remaining reviews (for articles with QPQs).
Nandanar: Symbol voting keep.svg expansion done, long enough, passes copyvio checks. Hook cited offline. QPQ done (Oops! (film)).
Somasi Mara Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg created 12 Dec, long enough, no copvio issues, cited offline. QPQ done (Zareh Sinanyan).
Isaignaniyar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, long enough, no copyvio, hook cited inline to an offline source. QPQ: Server Sundaram.
Viralminda Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg created on 15 December, long enough, copyright checks passed, hook cited to an offline source. QPQ: Madame Clémentine Valensi Stora (L'Algérienne).
Eyarkon Kalikkama Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, long enough, free from copyvio, hook cited inline. QPQ: Madame Clémentine Valensi Stora (L'Algérienne).
Pugal Chola: Symbol voting keep.svg long enough, new enough, no copyright problems shown by tool, hook cited offline, QPQ done (Statue of Charles II, Soho Square).
Eripatha Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, long enough, passes copyvio checks, hook cited. QPQ done (Storeton Hall).
Manakanchara Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg expanded recently, long enough, no copyvio, hook cited inline to an offline source, QPQ done (Blakumen).
Kotpuli: Symbol voting keep.svg expansion done, hook cited, no copyvio, neutral, QPQ done (Saint Bartholomew Monastery).
Enathinathar: Symbol voting keep.svg expansion requirements met, QPQ done (Amphianthus dohrnii) #1, hook cited offline, neutral, no copyright problems raised by tool
Sirappuli Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg created 16 Dec, new enough, long enough, hook cited, free from copyright issues, is neutral, QPQ done (Amphianthus dohrnii) #2.
Seruthunai Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg created 17 December, long enough, hook cited offline, meets core policies, no copyright problems, neutral, QPQ done (Amphianthus dohrnii) #3.
Amaraneedi Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg 17 Dec, long enough, hook cited inline to offline source, copyvio checks passed. QPQ done (Mitchler Run).
Nesa Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg 17 December, new enough, long enough, hook cited in article, no copyvio problems, QPQ done (Shingle Run (Huntington Creek)).
Pugazh Thunai Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg created on 17 December, long enough, new enough, free from copyvio, hook cited inline to an offline source, QPQ done: (Arnold Creek (Huntington Creek)).
Kutruva Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg 19 Dec creation, new enough, long enough, hook cited, no copyright problems, QPQ done: Lick Branch.
Kalarsinga Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg long enough, new, hook cited in article, no copyright issues, neutral, QPQ done (Phillips Creek).
Munaiyaduvar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, long enough, hook cited, no copyvio, QPQ done (Beda people).
Ilayankudi Maranar: Symbol voting keep.svg recently created, long enough, free from copyright problems/close paraphrasing, hook cited, QPQ done (Ram ke Naam).
Meiporul Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, QPQ done (Uma Maheswaran), long enough, no copyvio problems, hook is in article and cited offline.
Iyarpagai Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg long enough, new enough, cited inline, meets key polities, free from copyvio, neutral, QPQ done (Tom Wills portrait).
Tiru Nilakanta Yazhpanar: Symbol voting keep.svg new and long enough, hook cited to an offline source, passes checks of copyvio tool. QPQ done (Charles DeWitt Watts).
  • Merry Christmas! Note that some of these bring up a Wikipedia mirror in the copyvio checks, but otherwise, there appears to be nothing problematic. Symbol possible vote.svg Waiting on the last article and the remaining QPQs. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thine Antique Pen Alas, the final article Apputhi Adigal (5x) and QPQs are done. Happy reviewing. :) Redtigerxyz Talk 19:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Kalikamba Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, long enough, no copyvio, hook cited. QPQ: Jeong Seon.
  • Tirunilakanta Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg new enough, long enough, no copyvio, hook is cited inline to an offline source. QPQ: Vinnytsia II (single-mandate constituency).
  • Tiruneelanakka Nayanar: Symbol voting keep.svg article long enough, new, meets requirements, no copyright violations, hook cited. QPQ: Indian National Congress campaign for Indian general election, 2014.
  • Apputhi Adigal: Symbol voting keep.svg 5x expanded, hook cited, no copyvio. QPQ: Swatantra 2014.
OVERALL: Symbol voting keep.svg GTG, and image is freely licensed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Panyd, I have shortened it to 587 characters. These are the shortest names of these saints. It can not be reduced any further. The longest hook till date is 624 characters. See Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame. Also, the length is within limits as per Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines C3 calculations for hook length. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Reverting to Thine Antique Pen's AGF approval. Panyd, per WP:DYKSG#C3, only one of the links in a multi-article hook should be counted in reckoning the length against the 200 prose character maximum. Even counting the longest of them, I get a length of 136 (excluding "(pictured)" as per usual), which is well within reason. For the promoter: since the hook is as long as three full-length hooks, the normal seven hooks in the prep set should be reduced to five, and be sure the other four hooks are of varying (shorter) lengths. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Due to the overlapping content between these articles, several fall short of the original-content minimum character count. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadaiya Nayanar- TOTAL 2011 B (full article) be given the credit of all content as repeated part of Intro as well as collective worship for calculation (which does not exist in earlier Nayanar articles) and was first written by me for this DYK series. In Intro, "was a Nayanar saint, venerated in the Hindu sect of Shaivism. He is generally counted as the ____ in the list of 63 Nayanars" is repeated; the numbering of the Nayanar is changed. Since most of the Nayanars are depicted in similar hand posture: "He is depicted with ... folded hands (see Anjali mudra)." appears in most of the articles. Additional features like crown, shaven head, or an object in crook of the hand is handed to iconographical depiction. The holy day allocated to each Nayanar is a combination of month and nakshatra so "_______ Nayanar is worshipped in the Tamil month of ____, when the moon enters the _____ nakshatra (lunar mansion)." appears most articles, however the blank values are different. "He receives collective worship as part of the 63 Nayanars. Their icons and brief accounts of his deeds are found in many Shiva temples in Tamil Nadu. Their images are taken out in procession in festivals." is repeated in all articles. Size of non-repeating parts (original content):

  1. Isaignaniyar - 1940 char (removing overlapping of Sadaiya Nayanar) - TOTAL 4079 B
  2. Nandanar: TOTAL 17kb (most of the content is unique)
  3. Vayilar Life section about 1928 characters (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections is not counted) - TOTAL 2944
  4. Sakkiya Nayanar Life section about 1951 characters (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections is not counted) - TOTAL 3414
  5. Idangazhi Life section about 1739 characters (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections is not counted) - TOTAL 2627
  6. Anaya Nayanar Life section about 1941 characters (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections is not counted) - TOTAL 3127
  7. Kalikamba Nayanar Life section about 2066 characters (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections is not counted) - TOTAL 2859
  8. Kaliya Nayanar about 1966 characters (entire article) - TOTAL 2447
  9. Satti Nayanar 1946 char (entire article) - TOTAL 2411
  10. Pusalar 3 paras in Life 2419 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4744
  11. Kungiliya Kalaya Nayanar 2 paras in Life 1741 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4960
  12. Murthi Nayanar Life 2204 chars (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 3533
  13. Murkha Nayanar Life 1681 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 3080
  14. Nami Nandi Adigal Life 2 para 2518 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4171
  15. Somasi Mara Nayanar Life 2 para 1815 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4248
  16. Viralminda Nayanar Life 2 para 1807 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 5850
  17. Pugal Chola Life 2 paras 1719 paras (not counting his interaction with Eripatha Nayanar) (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 5261
  18. Eripatha Nayanar Life 2 paras 2531 para (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4066
  19. Eyarkon Kalikkama Nayanar Life 1 para 1859 char (not counting his interaction with Manakanchara Nayanar) (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4778
  20. Manakanchara Nayanar Life 2 paras 2236 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4876
  21. Kotpuli Life 2 paras 1807 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 3332
  22. Enathinathar Life 2 paras 2071 char (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4559
  23. Sirappuli Nayanar about 1843 char (entire article) - TOTAL 2640
  24. Kalarsinga Nayanar Identification and dating 1748 char (not counting his interaction with Seruthunai Nayanar) (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 5367
  25. Seruthunai Nayanar Life 1704 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 2942
  26. Amaraneedi Nayanar Life 2 paras 1766 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4669
  27. Nesa Nayanar - 1862 (entire article) TOTAL 2824
  28. Pugazh Thunai Nayanar 1990 (entire article) - TOTAL 2745
  29. Kutruva Nayanar Life 1853 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 3100
  30. Munaiyaduvar 2072 (entire article) - TOTAL 2930
  31. Ilayankudi Maranar Life 1644 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 3720
  32. Meiporul Nayanar Life 1 para 1769 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 5409
  33. Iyarpagai Nayanar Life 2355 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 4255
  34. Tiru Nilakanta Yazhpanar Life 4 paras 2014 (not counting his interaction with Tiruneelanakka Nayanar) (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 5786
  35. Tiruneelanakka Nayanar Life 3 paras 2199 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL 5457
  36. Tirunilakanta Nayanar Life 3 paras 2462 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) - TOTAL SIZE: 6324 B
  37. Apputhi Adigal Life 3 paras 2308 (Since over 1500 characters, original in other sections/para is not counted) TOTAl - 4661

Redtigerxyz Talk 06:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Numbers updated. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Those numbers don't appear to be correct. For example, DYKcheck is showing under 900 characters of original prose for Nesa Nayanar, while Isaignaniyar and Sadaya Nayanar are so nearly identical that the latter has under 500 characters of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, as per my calculations, only 5 articles may need additional expansion. Since the repeated content (intro and Remembrance - collective worship) is also created by me first for these DYKs, it should be included in calculation of at least 1 article. I suggest that the intro be calculated in one article and collective worship para in another article. Please let me know your views. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes Nikkimaria, I missed your comment at the end. As per my calculations, Satti Nayanar, Nesa Nayanar, Isaignaniyar, Munaiyaduvar and Sadaya Nayanar are the only ones that need additional expansion. But the repeating content is also written by me for these DYKs, I should be given credit for 1/more articles upon distribution of the content. Also, please point out the other articles which have the original prose issue if you disagree with these numbers. What tool are you using for original prose? Redtigerxyz Talk 07:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Nesa Nayanar, Munaiyaduvar, Satti Nayanar and Isaignaniyar is expanded. Please check. Please let me if any other articles need to be expanded.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The repeated content is included in the calculation of the article in which it first appeared, which is (almost entirely) Vayilar, though it's difficult to track as some of the material that's been added is also repeated between articles. Thus, Sirappuli Nayanar, Sadaya Nayanar, and Satti Nayanar are too short, and the additions generally need copyediting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Since all of these articles are created by me as series for this DYK and no one else has edited the repeated part, I suggest that the repeated content be included in the calculation of Sadaya Nayanar, instead of the longer Vayilar. I will expand Sirappuli Nayanar, Satti Nayanar and Vayilar (if needed). Also, please let me know what tool you using for the calculation so I can know how much I need to expand. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Shubinator/DYKcheck. I don't think that suggestion is appropriate, particularly in light of supplementary rule A5, but I will request a second opinion at WT:DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria; Sirappuli Nayanar, Satti Nayanar is expanded. Is any other article expect Sadaya needed to be expanded? Vayilar if Sadaya is considered the base article? Redtigerxyz Talk 07:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sadaiya Nayanar is also expanded. Nikkimaria, please check. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Second_opinion_needed_-_Template:Did_you_know_nominations.2FNayanars, I have expanded all necessary articles. So even if the repeated content is not counted in character length, it is above 1500 characters. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Okay, articles are now long enough, though both they and the hook need copyediting. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 15[edit]

Sony Pictures Entertainment hack

Sony Pictures Plaza in Culver City, California

Created by Everymorning (talk), Masem (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 23:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

  • The information keeps changing, making original hook and ALT1 less desirable. --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Doing... Jim Carter 16:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. (Previous reviewer said it would be done by next day, and hasn't edited in the two days since that self-imposed deadline was missed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There are ALT2 and more ALTs that I added. George Ho (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • striking all long (ineligible) hooks. 18302 characters. Article created by Everymorning on December 15, 2014. Earwig's Copyvio Detector about 20 links with > 40% copyvio, checked manually first 10 are false alerts (quotations are used in the article) or wikimedia mirrors.

ALT2: "unreleased films". Where is this fact explicitly stated? Annie, Mr. Turner, Still Alice and To Write Love on Her ... are all released films. ALT7: In 27 minute interview, can you tell at what minute is 47,000 mentioned? --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Talk 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I added "previously" in ALT2; I added ALT9. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am still unsure where ALT2 is mentioned in the article. I am unable to verify the part "hackers' threatening message to whoever would watch a 2014 film" of ALT9. Also "300+ theatres" is different "approximately 300" (more or less 300), please make it consistent in hook and article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It was released in more than 300; see Box Office Mojo. --George Ho (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page to help come up with a hook. How about ALT10: "... that although the FBI has blamed North Korea for the hacking of private information belonging to Sony Pictures Entertainment, some cybersecurity experts remain skeptical about whether North Korea was responsible?" Everymorning talk 13:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Everymorning, I'm striking ALT10, as it is 212 characters. The absolute maximum is 200, but hooks should really be shorter than that. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Sahifat al-Ridha

  • Comment: Article created in my userspace on October 30, moved to mainspace on December 15.

Moved to mainspace by Samaneh-davoudi (talk). Self nominated at 12:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Long enough, moved to main space on the indicated day, and reliably referenced. There are two issues that I see, though: First, the article needs a copyedit by someone who knows more than I about the topic. I fixed a few grammar lapses (also in the hook) but a number of phrases in the article are incomprehensible to me (and, by extension, some readers without a strong background in the topic). Second, the lead phrase (first paragraph) is too closely paraphrased from its source. I would further prefer a hook that directly conveyed the message that this is a 9th century book. --Pgallert (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 oil spill on Sundarbans

Shela river polluted by oil spill

Created by Ctg4Rahat (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 19:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, QPQ done, passes copyvio checks. Article is well-referenced. Hook verified inline. GTG. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I added the photo, which is yet to be verified as free to use. If you don't want to wait for picture verification, don't use the picture. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Images have been granted permission through OTRS. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook is well over 200 characters, and thus ineligible for DYK. A shorter ALT hook will have to be proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have further restored the hook to reflect the modifications of George Ho: both the new (moved) article name and the "pictured" are restored. However, the hook needs to be revised as an ALT1 so it makes grammatical sense, which it doesn't now (please do not modify the original hook again, and be sure to use the proper name of the river), and the article itself requires a significant copyedit before this can be approved for DYK. For the latter, you may wish to request assistance from the Guild of Copy Editors. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Copyediting has been done by Biblioworm. Thanks a lot. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 20:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 17[edit]

Bali Mauladad

At the wheel of a safari car

Created by Mauladad (talk), Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 10:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article itself is new enough and long enough. Though the primary reference is an unreliable source, the hook is sourced to a reliable one (a Mansfield News Journal article), which I have confirmed supports the claim. As for the image, OTRS permission for the original version at File:Bali Iqbal.jpg is still pending, and the image's current licence tag contradicts the information given in the summary. (That is, the summary template says the copyright holder is a third party, but the licence tag says that the uploader himself is the copyright holder.) This issue needs to be resolved before the image can be used. The rest of the sources are not available online, and at least one of them has been copied verbatim, so I cannot take it on good faith that there is no plagiarism from the remainder. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm not understanding the detail of these objections — please clarify. If it helps, perhaps I can explain the history of the photograph. This was taken by Marion Kaplan - a woman in France who contacted the first author to volunteer the photo. She is quite willing for photo to be used and has been persuaded to make the OTRS submission but, as this as all been done recently, I suppose that's still pending in a backlog. The DYK nomination couldn't wait on this because of the 7 day deadline. I then cropped that original photograph to make the subject more prominent. The text of the article has all been confirmed online but the books have to be inspected in a fragmentary way if you're using something like Google Books and so are not really suitable for URLs. If you think something is paraphrased too closely then please give details and I'll rework it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the photograph, is Marion Kaplan also the uploader? If not, photo's licence tag must be changed, because currently it wrongly states that the uploader is the copyright holder. Regarding the article text, this edit copied entire paragraphs, without modification and apparently without permission, from Encounters With Lions by Jan Hemsing. Given that this apparent copyvio has happened with one source, it's important for us to check for copying from all the other offline sources as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Marion Kaplan is the photographer, but not the uploader. Kaplan is clearly identified as the photographer in both the original file and in the cropped version so I suppose the licence tag should be amended if it's not quite right. Regarding the diff, this was done by user:Mauladad who has a copy of the book but is a novice editor and so does not fully understand our copyright rules. She was acting in good faith rather than deceptively as the edit summary was "Added 2 paragraphs from page 118 ewl". I suggest that that edit be reverted as it was made after my DYK nomination and so is not immediately needed. All the other text was written by myself or under my direct supervision. I am a very experienced editor and so took care to attribute a direct quotation properly when this was done originally. Andrew D. (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. If you could fix the image licence tag and follow the copyvio template instructions to produce a version of the article which omits the infringing text, then the issues will be resolved, and maybe this DYK could be revisited. Psychonaut (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not touching the page as the tag says "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." Myself, the original author and some admins will be meeting again next Sunday at London Meetup #89 where I expect we will resolve this. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you read the rest of the template? As I mentioned above, it explains how and where to create a non-infringing version of the article. If you do that and leave a note at its WP:CP entry, the matter could get resolved quite quickly. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The version of 20 December is non-infringing but I'm not seeing the point of copying this to another page. WP:CP is backlogged, as I understand it, and so until this can be negotiated with an admin, we're stuck. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
A proper permissions email has been sent to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org.
Geni (who is standing next to me) is saying that it's ok.
As soon as OTRS processes it, it should be good to go.Mauladad (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The copyright issues were resolved yesterday at the London meetup and so we're good to go again. If any further spot checking is required then the sources include:

  1. Encounters with Lions — snippet view on Google Books
  2. White Hunters — preview at Google Books
  3. Home to Pakistan — snippet view on Google Books
  4. Africa Hunting — lots of pictures and anecdotes
Andrew D. (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean you're happy to tick @Mauladad:? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nyu Media

Created by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough. Hook checks out via the online sources. QPQ done. Good to go. — sparklism hey! 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Please see my comment below, thanks — sparklism hey! 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg 1. D5 Article has been nominated for deletion 2. A4/F8 Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (it has been recreated in the past 10 days if that counts?) 3. F10 / D13 : WP:NOTADVERTISING / not seen to encourage/reward previous advertising / previous paid editing per Concerns at Talk:Nyu Media#DYK_nomination Widefox; talk 13:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Widefox; talk 13:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Getting overly litigious now. The DYK standard is to put the nom on hold while the AfD (which you just started) runs, not to kill it. The article was indeed created within the last ten days—the G11'd history of the article (which was not used in the rewrite) was restored at your request for the talk page restoration. Furthermore, the current article has nothing to do with the previous creator's paid editing, as I have rewritten it from scratch after it was G11'd. czar  14:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify - 1. and 2. are reds from the automated script 1. would be a hold 2. I have no experience - but I'm willing to withdraw 2. if that's the norm 3. is a concern more than one editor has expressed, and is intentionally voted as delete. This is a controvercial nom. (other comment taken to usertalk). Widefox; talk 14:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This is one of the normal icons used to put a nomination on hold when an article is at AfD. Widefox, as the filer of the AfD, you have a bit of a COI here, so having noted the AfD, I'd recommend leaving any review to an uninvolved party, especially given your DYK inexperience. However, Czar, I don't see how this can be justified as a new article. It's clear to me from looking at the history that you've used the opportunity given you by a highly questionable article deletion to build a better article, but the fact remains that an article with this name has effectively existed for almost an entire year (and was only absent from mainspace for 46 minutes). As such, DYK would not consider this new but a pre-existing article that needs a 5x expansion (WP:DYKSG#A4 is germane here), and only previous material that was copyvio would be excluded from a 5x expansion calculation. At the moment, the article as it exists is very slightly smaller than the article as it was before the inappropriate G11 was executed; barring extensive copyvio in the old article, which I doubt because I imagine it would have surfaced during the original AfD, I don't see how this can qualify for DYK this time around. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, I agree that this article's history is FUBAR. Post-G11, I recreated the article from scratch—not sure why it should make a difference if that happened 46 minutes or 46 years following its deletion. The G11 history is only visible because there was a later request to restore the old talk page's content and the article's history came along. As I saw it, unless someone questions the quality of the G11 (which hasn't happened yet), the article was, for all purposes, TNT'd and created as any other article would have been. czar  09:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Czar, you're certainly welcome to bring this up on the DYK talk page if you feel I've made a bad call here, but to me this is just like any other previously existing article that was recently turned into a redirect. We've had those situations before, and they've been required to be 5x expansions, not new. In my opinion, the following applies: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I defer to your experience on details like this, but it doesn't quite make sense to me why a deleted article written with new sources from the ground up would be considered an expansion instead of a creation, so I'll run it past WT:DYK fast czar  16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset 1. and 2. are just the output of the DYKcheck, so seem objective and technical (an update since Sparklism reviewed). Subjectively, my main review is not AfD, but disapproval 3., and my understanding is anyone including those new to DYK may participate. As nom of two AfDs, if that is a level of involvement too close for DYK review, then please disregard my input, and instead see DGG's reaction to this nom linked above. Widefox; talk 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg AfD closed as keep. Would still like a second opinion on whether an article created from scratch after a full G11 deletion is ineligible. czar  07:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see a G11 in the article's history. Is there a diff here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, only in the log. It wasn't tagged, just deleted. The pre-G11 article edits were not restored for their content but came along for the ride after Widefox requested the restoration of the previous talk page two days later. The current article shares no actual history with that previous talk page conversation or any of the pre-G11 content. czar  03:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright. The text I was writing follows:
  • Blue asked me to comment here on my talk page. I must admit this is a first for me, in the entire time I've participated in DYK. Generally if an article is deleted then eventually recreated, there is a period of several years between iterations, not one day. In these cases authors are often unaware that there was a previous version, let alone able to check what the previous version was.
That being said, articles which have previously been deleted and (I note) this deletion has not been overturned following the processes in place for this, have in my experience been treated as new articles. Most of the articles I've written didn't have this problem, but some I've reviewed, such as Valeria Lukyanova, have. In the case of Valeria Lukyanova, the article was created anew after being deleted at AFD and under G4. It was successfully nominated at DYK, because it was completely written anew. The the deleted version was not considered (though it was later reinstated), as it was not there when the article was created. Furthermore, to be able to check deleted versions, one must be an admin; we barely have enough admins to handle the queues, let alone review all nominations.
Now, this being one day between deletion and recreation, there may be a push to disallow the article. However, I think it should be allowed, since Czar did not use any of the previous article in creating the new one; had he written this based on a userfied copy, my opinion would be quite different. Furthermore, he did not try to game the system by having the article deleted; the (out of process) deletion was done by another user, without any urging (and, indeed, over the complaints of) Czar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Crisco 1492, thanks for taking the time. Just to be clear, the article was recreated 46 minutes after it was deleted, not one day—almost immediately, in fact. I gather that you feel this wouldn't make a difference, but let's at least describe the time scale correctly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Right. I forgot to update that after being directed to the logs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, per Crisco 1492's assessment that this does indeed count as a new article; the original review scanted many areas, including the "within policy" criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sparklism czar  17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, perhaps I should explain my position here. This was, in fact, my first ever attempt at a DYK review, undertaken as a good faith QPQ review when I made my first ever DYK submission here. I'm a complete DYK novice, and what appeared to be a simple article to review here turned out to be more complex than I thought. Other contributors to this discussion clearly have the experience in this area that I lack, and I think it's best all round if I strike my original review and sit out the remainder of the discussion. Thanks for the ping back here, Czar - I'll watch the rest of the discussion with interest as part of my ongoing learning. — sparklism hey! 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg full review needed czar  17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Phisit Intharathat

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cereal Killer Cafe
  • Comment: I pulled a complete rewrite on this article, but saved and relocated the images that were in it. I could not resist clarifying this dogged prisoner's quest for liberty. An extra fillip is that he was rescued in a raid of which the public is oblivious; indeed, it is a common (mistaken) belief that the only attempted rescue was the bust at Son Tay—Operation Ivory Coast. This article is my own little tribute to a gutsy guy.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Addendum: If some kindly type would place one of the photos in text to this nom, it would make a great lead DYK.
  • Note: Unfortunately, as all three images in the article are non-free, none of them are eligible for DYK. Unless a free image can be found and added to the article, this cannot be a lead hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh. So much for carrying over old graphics by a prior editor's hand when one rewrites an article. I should have double checked them. I will remove them.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Georgejdorner, they just aren't eligible to be DYK lead images; those must be free images. To be included in the article, however, you just need to add an NFCC rationale to the image(s) you want to use in the article (each article requires its own rationale). I would be surprised if an article about Phisit couldn't justify at least one image of him, especially one that had already been properly used elsewhere! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not up for that.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Actually, since the images were there in the pre-expansion version of the article, they may be fine for inclusion there (though of course not on the Wikipedia main page). I'm pinging Crisco 1492 to see whether the rationales given are sufficient. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. Restored the one image to article per Crisco 1492 (thanks, Crisco!). BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014

  • Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Hans Krueger
  • Comment: Okay, I'm aware that we're typically squeamish about sex-related topics on the main page, but I honestly can't think of any reason not to add this; the key topic when discussing the regulations is censorship, not pornography in itself, and the article passes all of the normal criteria.

Created by Sceptre (talk). Self nominated at 04:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Secondary comment: there's also the related article Charlotte Rose, which is about twenty days old and could provide the basis for a double hook; I've asked that article's creator, ISD (talk · contribs), if he'd like to contribute to the discussion. Sceptre (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should go with a hook that's less in-your-face:
ALT2... that a Parliament Square protest against a ban on depiction of certain sexual practices in streaming videos featured slogans such as "Urine for a shock if you expect us to stop"?

(It's in the Telegraph article.) EEng (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Martinevans123: I feel there's an opportunity here re urine and streaming, but the words just aren't flowing. Can you help out? (Nothing too ham-handed, please, and no yellow journalism etc.)

ALT2a: ... that sex worker Charlotte Rose organised a protest in Parliament Square against a ban on depiction of certain sexual practices in streaming videos, which included slogans such as "Urine for a shock if you expect us to stop"?
That said, the facesitting part was the most notable part of the protest. Sceptre (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. EEng (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC) (Very disappointed Martinevans123 hasn't chimed in with something utterly filthy. EEng (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

I couldn't possibly lower myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Nonetheless you have. EEng (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I refuse to reply. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. Unfortunately, as Charlotte Rose was created on November 28, nineteen days before this nomination was made, it is not eligible for DYK, given the seven-day requirement. The article can be given a regular link in the hooks involving her, but not a bold link (and I've removed the bolding from those suggested hooks). Sceptre, if you'd prefer not to use the hooks with her name, please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The hooks are fine with Rose's name unbolded. Sceptre (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Sceptre. I've had to strike ALT2a, however, as it's well over the 200-character maximum. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Full review, reporting in. New (17th), long enough, just neutral enough but was there really no negative response to the protests at all?, no copyvio found via close paraphrasing spot check besides "be in breach of the obscene" (which should be fixed), QPQ done but is not a full review and should be expanded (also the final response in the DYK should have a checkmark image so the closers know it's ready). ce'd hook, which checks out. Struck the Rose AL1 as too bulky atop the main. Struck ALT2 as the "urine ..." quote isn't in the article. "See also" section belongs above "Notes" per the layout guidelines. A few fixes and we're good to go. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  04:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Unstriking ALT2 as it's now in the article. EEng (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Czar per request. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg ALT2 confirmed in the source so it's good, but I was waiting on the nom (@Sceptre) for the other points/questions czar  17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there was any negative press regarding the protests; the law itself was passed through without ceremony as SIs normally do, and SIs only really get noticed if they're objectionable. I've edited the close paraphrasing and fixed the layout problem; I hope we're good to go now. Sceptre (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 18[edit]

Mano Blanca

5x expanded by Vanamonde93 (talk). Self nominated at 06:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment Not sure "considerable assistance" is quite demonstrated, though of course the refs are off-line. Training, weapons, cash? These are assistance. Encouragement is different. "support" might be better, if more specifics can't be produced. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, I believe the assistance inlcluded all of these. The CIA also actually created a lot of the organization that this group and its ilk were built out of. The source is indeed offline, but I can provide you quotes if you like, and google search will let you locate where they are from at the very least, even if it will not let you read them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Then you should add more specifics to the article, probably using some quotations. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Vanamonde93, I see no sign that you've addressed the suggestions made by Johnbod in the nearly four weeks since the above comments. It sounds like the specifics are needed to adequately support the hook if the hook is to be used as is. Can you please let us know what you intend to do here? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, apologies for the delay in responding; bad weather unexpectedly cut me off from the internet, and my connectivity is still terrible. I am not currently in a position to add stuff. I will be able to in a few days time. Alternatively, I am willing to strike the "considerable" from the hook, as the sources show assistance quite unequivocally. If even that is not acceptable, I am willing to strike the phrase about US assistance (although that is what makes the topic fascinating to me.) Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me know when it is ready for another look. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 19[edit]

Parisian Women in Algerian Costume (The Harem)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Parisian Women in Algerian Costume, 1872.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self nominated at 01:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF. Hook: I don't like the two brackets in a row. Was the title like this at the time of the rejection? Can we drop "(The Harem)", perhaps add "disliked by the artist"? Perhaps only that he disliked it? - Whatever, absolutely with the image. Will wait for qpq and response. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Amended the hook and the caption as suggested. I am not sure about adding Renoir's opinion into the hook. I will try to think of an alt. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't, this is fine, rejected is stronger than disliked ;) - Just a review, then we are ready. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading hook again: perhaps say "painting", - otherwise we expect "women were rejected", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Philafrenzy, it's been 17 days. You need to supply a QPQ within a few days, and also (if you wish) to provide an ALT hook with adjusted wording per Gerda's concerns. I hope we hear from you before it's been three weeks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Alt1 ... that Renoir's harem scene, Parisian Women in Algerian Costume (pictured), was rejected for the Paris Salon of 1872? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not really a harem, can we call it harem scene? qpq? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what Renoir called it but the commonly accepted alternate name for the work is Interior of a Harem in Montmartre (Parisian Women Dressed in Algerian costumes) as mentioned in the article so I think we can reasonably call it a harem scene. QPQ soon. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

David Tannenberg

Tannenberg Organ Winston-Salem

  • ... that in the 1700s, David Tannenberg was the most important pipe-organ builder in the United States of America?
  • ALT1:... that the pipe-organ at the Old Salem Museum (pictured) was constructed by David Tannenberg, the most important 18th century pipe-organ builder in the United States of America?
  • ALT2:... that David Tannenberg was the most important builder of pipe-organs (pictured) in the United States during the 18th century?
  • Reviewed: Arthur Kober
  • Comment: There are two pics of this organ on the article page. I think we can work one into the hook, just not sure how.

Created/expanded by Twbaucom (talk), Gaff (talk). Nominated by Gaff (talk) at 03:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC).

  • The talk of "The United States of America" seems more than a little anachronistic for a subject who came to North America well before the American Revolution. EEng (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My reasoning: If we put "America" it is considered USA-centric (which is a big no-no in the Wikipedia culture). Of note, Tannenberg, with some controversy, signed an Oath of Allegiance to the incipient US government in 1778, while he was still ~ 25 years away from his last organ construction (which he was tuning when he had a probable stroke. The quote from the musicologist is in the article and clearly sourced. It says "Tannenberg was the most important eighteenth-century American organ-builder." It can be interpreted in several ways. If we put "North America" it presupposes that there was nobody more significant in Canada. If we put "America" it exempts anything south of the border. Gaff (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we let Canada worry about that if and when someone nominates this for the Canadian Wikipedia? EEng (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to get all WP:OR but it doesn't look like there were any big wig organ building Canucks in 18th century. So, how about:
  • ALT3:... that the pipe-organ at the Old Salem Museum (pictured) was constructed by David Tannenberg, the most important 18th century pipe-organ builder in America?

Gaff (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. EEng (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Should be good to go on ALT3. Please review. Gaff (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Image freely licensed. QPQ done. Regarding the hook, the article and the image don't say anything about "Old Salem Museum". I expanded the captions with information I found in other sources, that the restored organ is housed in the Old Salem Visitor Center. Perhaps you could find a source and fix the location in the article, and then we can proceed. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Beda people

5x expanded by Sitush (talk). Self nominated at 09:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Put this on hold for now. It is 5x expanded but nowhere near 1500 words. That should happen before the seven days are up. Sorry for misunderstanding the criteria. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Sitush, the requirement is "at least 1,500 characters". 3766 B. 5x on 19-Dec. But neutrality might be an issue with Beda. While the article correctly says "the practices of social exclusion, submission to superiors and suchlike are not as rigid as can be found in other caste societies", the article needs to acknowledge there is differentiation, eg. Mann says that higher class groups do not enter the houses of the Beda. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I am useless today, sorry: I've been making stupid typo errors and all sorts. I'm trying to work my way through the untouchability issues and, yes, Mann throws a spanner in the works. It is a bit confusing because on the one hand Gutschow says that they are untouchable and on the other Mann (2002) says that "untouchability and some other caste prejudices are still missing". He also says that "entry into each other's house is again not prohibited" (p. 48) and that "there is no customarily proposed taboo for entry into houses belonging to any group (p. 38), but acknowledges that some people are uncomfortable about it. Plenty of time yet: I really think I may have jumped the gun here with the hook, although I had read the sources beforehand and have some more to go at yet. Sitush (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Comment: QPQ is needed. --Gfosankar (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Sitush, it has been four weeks, and you have not posted here that anything above has been addressed, nor have you supplied a QPQ review. You need to post here now to continue the review process. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am in hospital, sorry. Not in a fit state to concentrate etc due to painkillers. If someone wants to take this on then please do. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 20[edit]

Operation Pigfat

  • ... that General Vang Pao's belief in an ancestral dream prevented Operation Pigfat guerrillas from landing on top of enemy troops?
  • Inadvertent reuse of QPQ. New valid QPQ in progress.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: By 1968, the long-running secretive Laotian Civil War had been subordinated to the larger adjacent Vietnam War. Nevertheless, the Vietnamese communists established the largest concentration of their troops outside their borders in northeastern Laos. General Vang Pao attempted a preemptive spoiling attack against the communists, using his Hmong guerrillas as light infantry. The result was disastrous, despite his saving dream of lurking hazards.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 19:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I am not quite sure what you want here. Do I owe a QPQ?Georgejdorner (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that new QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 22[edit]

Saint James the Great Parish Church (Bolinao)

Created by Charles Boris Manez (talk). Nominated by Carlojoseph14 (talk) at 10:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): First Mass in the Philippines is currently proposed for deletion. It's not the nominated article, so we can just remove the wikilink if it ends up deleted, but this should be resolved before we can determine the status of this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. The linked article mentioned above now has a replacement at the same name. However, I have to say that I'm highly dubious about a hook that itself is repeating a dubious claim, no matter that it's on the actual marker there. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Arshad Warsi filmography

Arshad Warsi at the Star Parivar Awards, 2010

5x expanded by Skr15081997 (talk). Self nominated at 12:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I moved the nomination to 18 December, the start of the second expansion. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Per DYK checker the 5x expansion began on 22 December.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Cashel

Ernest Cashel in 1903

  • ALT1:... that Ernest Cashel (pictured) once escaped from a moving train by jumping out the bathroom window?
  • Reviewed: Ronald Markarian
  • Comment: User CaptainUnderpants2014 created the initial 60-byte microstub, for full disclosure. That user has since been blocked for vandalism.

5x expanded by Crow (talk). Self nominated at 23:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I moved the nomination to one day prior, the date of creation and then expansion. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Length, newness, cites, QPQ all good to go. Fun article, too bad we don't have a picture to get it into the lead. Prefer Alt1, which is directly cited. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • There are pictures out there, and since he died in 1902 they "should" all be PD, but the source pages also claim copyright, so I'm not sure how to reconcile that with pictures. CrowCaw 18:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

:*Checking on a possible image, please hold for a day or so for me to confirm copyright status, thanks! CrowCaw 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Can't get a ruling on a picture. If I can before this hits the queues I will add it. The one pic I'm pretty sure is PD is a wanted poster which won't look good thumbnailed to DYK size. CrowCaw 23:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And no sooner do I say that than G S Palmer adds one! Thanks! CrowCaw 00:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crow: if you want, you can crop the image to make it a better fit for DYK - or upload a separate cropped version for that purpose. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Never mind - I already cropped it. I also added it to the nom page. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Love that scowl! Now that's a mug shot! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% comfortable on the copyright status of this picture, as its publish date is unclear, at least for now. I've inquired at WP:MCQ for the experts there. An alternate pic that can be used, if any at all, would be File:Ernest Cashel.png. I may just be over-sensitive, given where I spend my non-article time here, but I'd rather err on the side of caution than let a copyvio hit the MP. I'm on travel, so my availability is sporadic, so do whatever is appropriate. Thanks, CrowCaw 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

May 18th National Cemetery

Memorial gate

  • Reviewed: Student assignment (ESL) for my Wikipedia course, I think the quality is good enough to be featured in our DYK column? I realize the article fails the "five days" window, but the student misunderstood my advice to start in the sandbox and started to work directly in the emainspace; by the time I caught it her project was too advanced to abandon. I hope we can WP:IAR the time limit and review this as an assignment finished now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Created by Tksgk262 (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 15:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

  • We absolutely should make an exception for this. EEng (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg OK, we can make an exception on the timing, but the article is one long copyvio. It doesn't appear that the May 18th National Cemetery website is public domain, nor are the book refs. Sentences and sentence structure are copied directly from these sources:
  • Source: The Old May 18th Cemetery was the place where the bodies of those who died gloriously during the May 18th Democratic Uprising were buried, and has been called the “Mangweol-dong Cemetery.” In the midst of the Uprising, the family members and relatives, in a state of horror and rage, carried the bodies on a trolley and buried their loved ones here in Mangweol-dong, and the bodies of those who were sacrificed on May 27th when the Provincial Hall fell or unidentified bodies were carried by a garbage truck and buried here.Since then, when Mangweol-dong has received the global spotlight as the “holy ground for democracy,” the military troops had schemed to abolish the graveyard, such as by unearthing the graves, etc.
  • Article: The Old May 18th Cemetery (구묘역) was the place where those who died during the May 18th Democratic Uprising were buried, and has been called the "Mangweol-dong Cemetery". In the midst of the Uprising, the family members and relatives carried the bodies on trolleys and buried the victims in Mangweol-dong. The bodies of those who died on May 27th when the Provincial Hall fell, and unidentified bodies, were carried by garbage trucks and buried here. Since Mangweol-dong received the global spotlight as the "holy ground for democracy", the military had planned to destroy the graveyard.
  • Source: Projects to create a National Cemetery were initiated in 1994, and the new National Cemetery for the May 18th Democratic Uprising was completed in 1997. The bodies that were buried at the Mangweol-dong Cemetery were moved to new graves, leaving 17 years of disgrace behind, and finally were able to rest in peace. The Mangweol-dong Cemetery was restored and is preserved in its original form to portray the painful and dreadful situation of the past, and the Gwangju Metropolitan City designated and manages the Mangweol-dong Cemetery as a historical site.
  • Article: Projects to create a National Cemetery were initiated in 1994, and the new National Cemetery for the May 18th Democratic Uprising was completed in 1997. The bodies that were buried at the Mangweol-dong Cemetery were moved to new graves. The Mangweol-dong Cemetery was restored and is preserved in its original form as a monument of the past. The Gwangju Metropolitan City designated and manages the Mangweol-dong Cemetery as a historical site.
  • Source: Each May for years now, a large number of people gather to pay reverence at Mangwoldong Memorial Cemetery in Gwanju, and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980."
  • Article: Each May a large number of people gather to pay reverence at May 18th National Cemetery (Mangwoldong Momorial Cemetery), and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980".
  • Source: The two cemeteries came to represent two different aspects of the uprising: the new, designed to represent a commemoration of past sacrifices and the old marked by the symbolism of a continuing struggle. Interesting to note is the suggestion evident in the process of naming. Equating “new” with “official” and “old” with “unofficial” serve to influence popular conception of the significance of the different actors involved in the uprising, their place in history, their ideologies and their legacies.
  • Article: The two cemeteries came to represent two different aspects of the Gwangju uprising: the new, designed to represent a commemoration of past victims, and the old, marked by the symbolism of the continuing struggle for democracy. Interesting to note is the suggestion evident in the process of naming. Equating "new" with "official" and "old" with "unofficial" serves to influence popular conception of the significance of the different actors involved in the uprising, their place in history, their ideologies, and their legacies.
  • Source: Monumental Pillar: the structure of the monumental pillar is two symmetrical square pillars that are 40 meters in height, and is a modern interpretation of Korea’s tradition stone construction, dang-gan-ji-ju (flagpole). Oval-shaped Sculpture: The sculpture symbolizes resurrection. Ova in shape, it is installed inside of the grasped hand at the central part of the monument pillar.Sculpture: This bronze sculpture installed horizontally in two pieces at distances of 17.5m to the right and left of the monument, respectively, is titled “Grassroots’ Resistance of May”
  • Article: Monumental Pillar: The structure of the monumental pillar is two symmetrical square pillars that are 40 metres (130 ft) high, and is a modern interpretation of Korea’s tradition stone construction, dang-gan-ji-ju (flagpole). Oval-shaped Sculpture: The sculpture symbolizes resurrection. Oval in shape, it is installed inside the grasped hand at the central part of the monument pillar. Bronze sculpture: This bronze sculpture, installed horizontally in two pieces at distances of 17.5 metres (57 ft) to the right and left of the monument, respectively, is titled "Grassroots Resistance of May"
  • Other notes: The Timeline section is unnecessary; any salient information should be written in prose form. Footnote 8 is an unclear URL. Footnote 9 is a Wikipedia article. The article also needs a bit of copyediting for English grammar. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh. And I even spend an hour or so with the student helping them rewrite this once before; clearly I wasn't clear enough on the entire COPYPASTE thing. Well, if the student comes back here, hopefully we can explain it to her again. As the course is over... we will see what happens. Ping course ambassador, User:-revi - if you could leave the student a short explanation in Korean about COPYPASTE, I'd appreciate it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's great you've been taking the time to shepherd all these student efforts. EEng (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Piotrus: this page should not stay as is with the copyios. Should I go ahead and blank the sections that are copied? (Not much will be left, though. Perhaps we should just put a copyvio notice on the whole page.) Yoninah (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The student got back to me saying she will try to rewrite the content. Perhaps we can wait few days and see if it is sufficient? If it won't be, I'd suggest blanking most of the article, but I think some elements should be oopyvio-free (ex. the lead or the list of refs). PS. If anyone here is a Korean speaker, and could translate parts of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing to Korean, I'd appreciate it; my students English is often not good enough to grasp the nuances discussed there well enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, as in you're going to translate the Close Paraphrasing thingamajig into Korean? EEng (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, as in I'll wait a few days for it to be improved. Yoninah (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsurprisingly, the students are not interested in doing any further work (the grades are up, after all). I've hopefully rewritten all instances of close paraphrasing, which hopefully will be enough to keep the article? (I guess for DYK purposes I am now not just the nom, but co-author as well...?) @Yoninah, EEng: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Symbol question.svg Thank you for cleaning this up, Piotrus. I removed more close paraphrasing and added some information from the sources. There are more monuments/memorials than the 2 listed, but this is a start article. I added an image to the hook for interest. IAR on the nomination date, per your request. So this is ... new enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Image is PD. Now you just need to submit a QPQ and we'll be ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have left a review at Template:Did you know nominations/To Live for the Masses. With all your work here, I think you should be recognized as the article's co-author, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the phrasing here is still too close to the sources. Compare for example "Each May, a large number of people gather to pay reverence here and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980"" with "Each May for years now, a large number of people gather to pay reverence at Mangwoldong Memorial Cemetery in Gwangju, and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980"". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Lim Hyung-joo

5x expanded by Gardeney (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

History merge done by admin on Dec 25, 2014. — Revi 12:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 NYPD officer killings

Created by Plot Spoiler (talk), Jason from nyc (talk), Benbuff91 (talk), and Ghostofnemo (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC).

Lord Kitchener Wants You

Britons: Lord Kitchener Wants You. Join Your Country's Army! God save the King

Improved to Good Article status by Chris troutman (talk). Self nominated at 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I've struck ALT0 because the source doesn't state this as fact, just its own speculation. EEng (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree and I reverted your change at the article. Lubin doesn't say he's speculating. Maybe you think he is. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Lubin says "But more likely the particular moustache Orwell had in mind belonged to" Kitchener. More likely, combined with the fact he cites to nothing, makes it speculation. EEng (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Unidentified decedent

5x expanded by Gourami Watcher (talk). Self nominated at 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The 28 December 2014 revision was 2,498 prose bytes; the current revision is 9,697 bytes. It wouldn't count as fivefold. Therefore, I moved the nomination to the "December 25" section. The December 22 revision was 1,396 bytes. The expansion between 22nd and current should be fivefold. Although the expansion started on December 15, I appropriately moved the nomination to a later date. Although it is one day over the seven-day limit, I hope someone treats it as an exception. George Ho (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I'd be inclined to let it qualify: it is only one day off, and it was very close to being a 5x expansion starting on the 28th (2,096 prose characters at the end of edits on December 25, which would require an expansion to 10,480 prose characters, only another 783 beyond the current 9,697). However, a QPQ will be required before the review continues, since Gourami Watcher has already used up his five free DYKs. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to give some reviews when I'm free. Just give me a few days :) --GouramiWatcher(?) 04:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 26[edit]

Edmond Debeaumarché

Created by Drmies (talk), Xanthomelanoussprog (talk). Nominated by Drmies (talk) at 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC).

  • As much as I would like to review this DYK nom, it is not eligible so long as it is rated as a Stub.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're kidding. Well, next time such a major faux pas is committed please ping me. In the meantime, I did what you could have done also: I removed the stub template. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is long enough and new enough. It seems well-referenced and neutrally worded, and there's no copying from the sources. Hook is OK, except that the claim of being honoured with a stamp is not sourced. This needs to be fixed—either add a citation for the claim, or change the hook to something supported by reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Psychonaut: I wasn't able to access those catalogues but this book mentions the stamp series on page 415 and lists each member in footnote 14. I've added the ref to the article.
I wasn't able to access these full texts but he is also mentioned in this French book on stamps and in a 1960 edition of Revue des deux Mondes discussing the release of the 1960 Heroes of the Resistance set here ("Ces cinq nouveaux timbres sont consacrés à Edmond Debeaumarché, Pierre Massé, Léonce Vieljeux, Maurice Ripoche et à l'abbé René Bonpain" - Translation: These five new stamps are dedicated to Edmond Debeaumarché, Pierre Massé, Léonce Vieljeux, Maurice Ripoche and Father René Bonpain). Fuebaey (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Acer chaneyi

  • ... that Acer chaneyi has the longest fossil record for any Western North American maple?

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 04:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article itself qualifies - it is only a day old at the time of nomination, is over 4000 characters, is adequately cited, and summarizes its source without plagiarizing it. There do not seem to be any neutrality issues to speak of. The article does not have an image, but as I found one in an old US Geological Survey publication (US Government publication, therefore available), I've added it to the article, and the nominator can use it for the DYK if they so choose. It can be found here: File:Acer_chaneyi_holotype.png. The self-nominator has provided a QPQ review. My only issue is with the hook, which is a bit bland, and somewhat misleading to the general reader. When I first read it, I took "longest" to mean "oldest", something the WP article doesn't clarify; it wasn't until reading the source article that I realized that there were far older species of Acer in the North American fossil record, and that A. chaneyi is simply the longest-extant species of maple in the fossil record of North America. (In fact, it might very well be the longest-extant species of maple in North America period, unless there are currently living species with a fossil record of 20 million years or more, but stating that would probably constitute original synthesis unless a source verifying that fact directly could be found.) The problem is that this fact in itself isn't that interesting to the general reader, at least, unless it can be spun in such a way that makes it a good hook. My advice would be to try an entirely different hook, perhaps concerning the fact that three different Latin binomial names were rejected before the name Acer chaneyi was settled on, told in an interesting and creative way. (I have some ideas on improvement of the article itself, but I'll post those on Talk:Acer_chaneyi later.) Peter G Werner (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Longest Fossil record" is how the span a taxon exists for is talked about in paleontology, while oldest is used for the first/most ancient. I dont think that the hook is bland myself, but here is a rewording:
  • Alt1 ... that with a 20 million year fossil record, Acer chaneyi has the longest fossil record of the Western North American maples? --Kevmin § 01:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The tweak works a little better, though I think there's still ambiguity about "longest" vs "oldest". That's actually perfectly fine for the hook, but it should be clearer in the article. I might edit the article a bit later. Most of my concerns with the proposed DIY are minor issues and I think this article and hook qualify. Would appreciated a second opinion, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

Bonifacio Trial House

  • Comment: First self-nomination

Created by Charles Boris Manez (talk). Self nominated at 13:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

Bail Act 2013

Created by (talk), Whiteghost.ink (talk). Nominated by Whiteghost.ink (talk) at 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

  • It was moved to mainspace on 27 December. --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article is long and new enough; QPQ done. It is inline cited with multiple reliable sources, mostly online. Spot checks did not reveal copy or close paraphrasing (due to the amount of sources; this was very much a spot check). I think the article is mostly neutral, but maybe a bit skeptical to the more restrictive part of the law. The article uses passive voice a couple of times, I added "by whom" three places; so I wonder if you would either fix that, but if you think it's unnecessary, just remove the template. Also, per WP:Weasel be aware of using words like "it was noted". There was already one "clarification needed" tag in the article, so I wonder if that can be fixed. As for the hook, it focuses on the main point of the article. I think it is acceptable, but maybe a more interesting hook would be to focus on that the act was amended due to the 2013 "sensationalized" cases? Apart from this, I think this article is basically good to go. (The lead is heavily inline-cited and not totally WP:SUMMARY style, but it's OK; just for later you don't need a lot of citations in the lead because the lead is only meant to summarize the body). Iselilja (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lyle Stevik

  • ... that Lyle Stevik's true identity has never been discovered?
  • Comment: Article remained in userspace until published on 27 December

Created by Gourami Watcher (talk). Self nominated at 18:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I hate to say this, since I think these "unidentified person" articles could do some good in the world, but I'm concerned about the licensing status of the image. Is the image really the "own work" of the editor uploading it? EEng (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Image has been on Commons since September 2014, so I will WP:AGF that in a world where image manipulating software is so prevalent, it is not real issue as a "rendering" for a non-living person. Article is long enough, new enough, and sourced enough. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I can't understand what you're saying, and I'm afraid I need to insist. The claimed licensing makes no sense that I can see. BlueMoonset? Crisco 1492? EEng (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a copyvio. The image was posted to a forum more than two weeks before it was uploaded here. Furthermore, I'd expect that self-made reconstructions would fall under our WP:OR policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The image was created by the uploader. Should I see if I can get an OTRS request? If that doesn't work, could it be uploaded under a non-free license on WP?--GouramiWatcher(?) 15:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I would agree, he was famous for one event, his death, but it honestly would feel a bit strange if the article was "death/suicide of ..." because Lyle Stevik was not his real name. Going with only the name was my preference when I created the article. --GouramiWatcher(?) 23:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is currently nominated for deletion but has a unanimous "keep" status (so far). --GouramiWatcher(?) 17:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg AfD closed as Keep. MichaelQSchmidt, now that there is no more image and notability has been established, did you want to complete the review? (I didn't see any mention of checking for close paraphrasing earlier.) Thanks. Note that Gourami Watcher has four DYKs to the main page, and two current nominations including this one. One of these two nominations will require a QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg A QPQ will be required after all. I missed one of the archived DYKs, so there are at least five prior DYKs on the main page. Gourami Watcher, you'll need to provide a quid pro quo review for this nomination and for your other active nomination as well. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 28[edit]

Mary Brodrick

Mary Brodrick

  • ... that Mary Brodrick (pictured) was one of the first female excavators in Egypt?

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self nominated at 14:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

  • The article is long enough. Its new enough. Its within the policy. The hook is cited. Its not too long (66 characters).Symbol voting keep.svg Agf for offline sources. Symbol question.svg What about QPQ?. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC) -->
  • I found a new source which I have added. QPQ next. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the Alt is by far the stronger hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
QPQ done. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Belleville and North Hastings Railway

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 16:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC).

Nice! (It's been a while since I'be been here and I can no longer see the ones I was involved in. How do I see past noms?) Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Operation Off Balance

T-28Ds of the Royal Lao Air Force used to support Operation Off Balance

  • ... that Operation Off Balance was staged in only three days in hopes of keeping the opposition off balance?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Meenakshipuram conversion.
  • Comment: A series of battles were fought on the Plain of Jars in Laos during 1969. Escalation of force on both sides led to this desperate attempt by the Royal Lao Government to regain the crucial all-weather airfield at Moung Soui. This desperate attack by hill tribe guerrillas, a battalion of paratroopers, and their Neutralist allies was sunk by defection of the latter and the serious loss of a hero. The communist riposte by battle-hardened troops depended on only the second use of tanks in northern Laos, and it was covered by heavy artillery. They won.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 22:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I tweaked the formatting on the image so it would show up. This was the only image in the article. I don't know about the wording since it refers to Operation Barrel Roll, rather than Operation Off Balance. — Maile (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. Barrel Roll was the ongoing air campaign that parceled out support to ground operations such as Off Balance. Of course, I neglected to explain this in the caption (not that there's room), so I changed the caption to conform. And I don't know what you did to clean the bars off the photo, but I also thank you for that.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 29[edit]

Victor Clough Rambo

Dr. Victor Clough Rambo

  • ... that medical missionary Victor Clough Rambo (pictured) removed nineteen cataracts in one day using a desk as an operating table?
  • ALT1:... that Victor Clough Rambo (pictured) worked as a janitor, busboy, and furnance-keeper to pay for medical school?
  • ALT2:... that medical missionary Victor Clough Rambo (pictured) used a pressure cooker to sterilize surgical instruments in his "eye camps"?

Created by Anissalee (talk). Nominated by Hirolovesswords (talk) at 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment – Moved from draft on December 29.
  • The first hook is absurd. Desks don't get cataracts (though rivers do). EEng (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Corrected --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
How does that help? The tops of desks don't get cataracts either. EEng (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There you go. Now no one will think Dr. Rambo performed surgery on a desk. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I took a "stab" at it. I do hope you know I was just kidding. EEng (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple-peril insurance

Created by Wsoule (talk). Nominated by 78.26 (talk) at 15:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

Jan Harold Brunvand

Jan Harold Brunvand

  • ALT1:... that author Jan Harold Brunvand (pictured) describes urban legends as the "kissing cousins of myths, fairy tales and rumors"?

5x expanded by SojoQ (talk). Self nominated at 10:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on December 30[edit]

Fortifications of Malta

Fort Saint Angelo in Birgu

Created by Xwejnusgozo (talk). Self nominated at 20:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC).

  • "considered among the finest examples" is typical WP:WEASEL/WP:NPOV (even if a source says it). Consider a better strapline. Igor the bunny (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Centrifuge Brain Project, Till Nowak

Created by MichaelQSchmidt (talk). Nominated by Lugnuts (talk) at 10:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Was this meant to be a two article nomination? It looked that way to me, so I adjusted this nomination template to reflect that. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you. Face-smile.svg Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As of December 22, all nominations now require a QPQ. Thus either Lugnuts or MichaelQSchmidt will have to complete two QPQs for this the move forward. I will be reviewing the articles themselves momentarily. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Centrifuge Brain Project:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Article easily meets all criteria. It just needs a QPQ. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Till Nowak

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Till Nowak likewise fulfills are requirement and just needs a QPQ --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure someone can. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 31[edit]

To Live for the Masses

  • ... that when the documentary To Live for the Masses was banned for public exhibition in 2006, the documentary's producers attempted anyway to distribute it as widely as they could?
  • Reviewed: Doing...

Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self nominated at 01:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg There are a few things to be done before this can be featured. 1) QPQ review 2) I think the hook's English could be improved 3) the article doesn't clearly support the hook; ie. it's not explain whether the X or XXX rating would ban the film from public execution. And "as widely as they could" is OR, and disputable; the best way to screen a documentary would be to release it on the net under a free license, something that doesn't seem to have been considered at all. 4) The article suffers from WP:WEASEL, with "with some comparing"... "Some have claimed". 5) As such, I think that a new hook is needed, one that is clearly based on references and sentences without "some claiming" and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Piotrus. I have just arrived in Los Angeles, so I need time to adjust, but I do intend to work on these issues within the week or so. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian and Richard Livingstone

  • ... that one of the publicity-shy billionaire Livingstone brothers is married to a journalist for the celebrity gossip magazine OK!?

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self nominated at 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The hook reads like a celebrity headline. How about a shorter, more neutral one, as follows:
  • ... that British billionaires, the Livingstone brothers, are so publicity-shy that they've been called "arguably the lowest-profile billionaire siblings in London"? Otherwise, it is GTG, assuming all British billionaires are notable (through I am not sure about that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hooks should be "hooky". And it is meant to be self-referential. And your alternative is longer, not shorter. Personally, I find it rather dull, and there can't be many billionaire siblings in London. How about removing the redundancy? Edwardx (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... the Livingstone brothers have been called "arguably the lowest-profile billionaire siblings in London"?


Improved to Good Article status by Borsoka (talk). Self nominated at 13:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

Sheree Fitch

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by HazelAB (talk). Self nominated at 00:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

  • This article was actually expanded tenfold on December 31. Before that it was a BLP with 1 source, but that was a dead link. HazelAB (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


  • ... that Krishna blessed Uttanka that rain clouds should appear at his bidding and shower in the desert, and these clouds are still known as "Uttanka's clouds"?
ALT ... that the rare clouds that shower in the desert are called "Uttanka's clouds"?

Created by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Lips Are Movin

Improved to Good Article status by MaranoFan (talk). Self nominated at 11:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

I believe that I have fixed the close paraphrasing. Marano fan 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot support the first hook. Many music videos have been entirely created by social media influencers. The nominator must mean "videos that have reached the mainstream in some sort of undefinable way". Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Is ALT1 fine? Marano fan 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit boring, but so's Trainor. Abductive (reasoning) 12:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Abductive: What exactly should be my next action? -- Marano fan 13:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess just wait to see if anybody has any serious objections to ALT1, and if not let them post it. Abductive (reasoning) 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The first hook is incomprehensible, if only because "social media influencers" is not in my dictionary. In addition, what "created" here means is entirely unclear. After all, the video has a director--he didn't create it? HP didn't "create" it? The bit about the "influencers", well, the article suggests they participated in the video, not that they created it. So this has to go, unless totally rephrased. ALT1 is indeed boring, and the hyphens should be removed: "behind the scenes" should be hyphenated only if it's an adjectival phrase used attributively. ALT2 is better but still humdrum. ALT3 could work if the eight minutes (quite astonishing) is combined with the 2.5 million views in two days (also astonishing--imagine 2.5 million times 3 minutes and 1 second spent on things that matter!)--that might be catchy.

    As for verification and GA status--well, these hooks are all verified, more or less (some of the sourcing in the article is sub par). GA status is a bit iffy. I'm not sure if that should get in the way of a DYK, but the GA badge was stuck on this article much too quickly, esp. since a. the prose was not up to snuff (not just in copyedits and word choice, but also in the very style, which just throws one sentence after another); b. some of the sourcing is questionable; c. I have doubts about coverage. That's up to the DYK crowd to decide on, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 1[edit]

Star Trek: The God Thing

Created by Miyagawa (talk). Self nominated at 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Nagamasa Kawakita

Created by MChew (talk). Self nominated at 06:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Neutral, acting in good faith that it is accurate and free of plagiarism due to the use of printed sources, but the statement that Kawakita was "warded the Order of the Sacred Treasures, 2nd class." is not cited. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 2[edit]

North Nicosia

A view of North Nicosia, highlighting the Selimiye Mosque

  • ... that North Nicosia (pictured), the capital of Northern Cyprus, hosts over 34,000 university students with its population around 61,000?

5x expanded by GGT (talk). Self nominated at 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Ion Agârbiceanu

5x expanded by Biruitorul (talk). Self nominated at 15:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC).



  • ... that the god Vishnu's mace (pictured as a woman) represents his wife?
  • ALT1:... that the god Vishnu's mace may be depicted as a woman (pictured)?
  • Reviewed: Nailsea Glassworks
  • Comment: Former redirect. Cropped image is used for hook

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Date, hook, length and image all check out. Offline sources accepted in good faith. Impressive work! — Hunter Kahn 22:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Demands of Liberal Education

Moved to mainspace by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 07:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 3[edit]

Work stealing

Created by Qwertyus (talk). Self nominated at 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 4[edit]

Jean-François Champollion

Jean-François Champollion

  • Comment: Expanded from less than 1kb to 29kb prose size

5x expanded by Maunus (talk). Self nominated at 22:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is fivefold expanded within five days before nomination. QPQ is not done; is this among your five first DYK articles? The article is very comprehensive and inline cited to reliable sources. I haven't checked for copyvio/close paraphrasing as the sources is mostly off-line and the one I found online (pdf) wasn't cited to exact page so much to look through. But assuming good faith here. The rule of thumb at DYK is that every paragraph should have at least one citation; in this article there is a few paragraphs that's lacking citations, and while we don't need to follow this rule slavishly, you can see if there are more paragraphs you want to add citations to. In particular I think the sentence "laying the foundation for all subsequent discoveries in egyptology" should have a citation. (I was also wondering if Death and Legacy should be one section, as except for the first sentence, all other content is actually legacy). A few places, like in the beginning of the Précis section, the style appears a bit story-telling to me and in my eyes strays a bit from an encyclopedic tone, but this is just my personal preferences, probably. Otherwise, I think this article is good to go. Iselilja (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do a QPQ today, and add some sources in the places you mention.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg I see you are still working on the article, but I'll just sign it off now as I think it is absolutely good enough for DYK standard. The photo is assumed by Wikimedia to be in the public domain (photography of 100+ old art). The hook is short enough, interesting and inline cited, though to an offline source, so AGF. (The text doesn't explicitly say "first major work", just mentions title; but I don't think there's a problem with that since it's not the main point of hook and probably clear from the full article). I notice that there has historically been some dispute regarding the importance of Champollion vs Young and I don't have expertise to make my own call whether the article is fully neutral in all aspects, but I trust the author. Iselilja (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lazi Church

Exterior of the Lazi convento

Created by Carlojoseph14 (talk). Self nominated at 09:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Hieromonk Mardarije, Hegumen Mardarije

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self nominated at 10:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Mississippi Highway 548

Created by CycloneIsaac (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 10:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is long enough, nominated timely, and no copyvios are found. QPQ was done. But there are two problems with the hook. First, the article doesn't say "only". Second and more important, the reference given for "It never meets any other road that is state maintained" does not actually say that. It simply displays a complex and hard-to-read map, requiring Original Research to interpret. We need a reference that actually states the hook information in words. Can you find such a reference? It looks as if almost all your references are maps. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Parker Training Academy Dutch Barn

A red wooden barn with a pointed roof. Some buildings and a low wooded ridgeline are at the rear.

  • Reviewed: Pakistan Armed Forces deployments
  • Comment: Yes, I do realize that most of the article is sourced to the building's NRHP nomination. Really, there aren't any other sources out there ... I looked, honestly.

5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self nominated at 21:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC).


Improved to Good Article status by Dankonikolic (talk). Self nominated at 10:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg No need for QPQ since it is the first DYK attempt of the nominator. Article promoted to GA on Janaury 4. Article length and date are OK. All paragraph has atleast a citation. But, I cannot find the hook on the article itself. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would add the "hook on the article itself" but I don't know what this is. I though that the above link to the page ideasthesia is that hook. Please advise.(Danko (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
  • I think "I cannot find the hook on the article itself." was meant to read "I cannot find the hook in the article". hook reads ok but we need a ref on the sentence in the article which mentions why it "may be grounded in how we activate concepts". HTH Victuallers (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarification. This is the the section "Ideasthesia and the hard problem of consciousness". To make it clearer, I changed the starting sentence: "The concept of ideasthesia bears implications for understanding how phenomenal experiences ..." into: "The concept of ideasthesia bears implications for the mystery of how conscious experiences ... ". Moreover, three sentences down, I added: "That is, experience is created by the process of activating the concept of that stimulus." Does this fix the issue? Note that the very first paragraph of the page states also: "Research on ideasthesia bears important implications for understanding the origin of human conscious experiences." (Danko (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)).

Kidnapping of Moisés Sánchez Cerezo

Created by ComputerJA (talk). Self nominated at 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

Grabaciones Accidentales

Created by Boomur (talk). Self nominated at 01:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Boomur: New enough, long enough, NPOV, no copvio. Hook directly cited. The notable artists section is unreferenced though. --Jakob (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added two citations for the list; these sources note all the Spanish artists listed. I had figured the existence of their releases was sufficient "proof", but since I'm not actually certain it is, I've just removed the non-Spanish artists for now. Thanks ~ Boomur [] 19:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Women's rights in 2014

Created by OrangesRyellow (talk), SlimVirgin (talk). Nominated by SlimVirgin (talk) at 16:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

  • I'm not sure what the answer is here but right now the article is massively biassed towards the positive, being based on an assemblage of news stories hooked to a couple of op-eds. I've left a few notes at Talk:Women's_rights_in_2014#Bias, albeit UK-centric. I don't know if POV is an issue for DYK, so this is just a heads-up. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've not read all of the sources but I do note that Solnit says in one of them that "In the end, this struggle over the meaning of one man's killing spree may prove to be a watershed moment in the history of feminism" (my emphasis) and "It was, like the post-Isla Vista weekend, a watershed moment in which the conversation changed, in which those who got it pushed hard on those who didn't, opening some minds and updating some ideas." which are not quite the same as what the hook says. What source are we using that links her to the hook? - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

John Shannon Munn

A photograph of the Peter Pan statue in St. John's, Newfoundland, built in memory of John Munn's daughter

A photograph of the SS Florizel in Newfoundland's St. John's Harbour, prior to its 1918 sinking

Created by IgnorantArmies (talk). Self nominated at 16:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ review done. NPOV. Dup detector finds no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. All paragraphs are cited as are the hook facts which check out with the sources. Interesting hooks. I prefer the first one, but perhaps slightly tweaked as ALT2 below? Edwardx (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that after John Shannon Munn and his three-year-old daughter drowned in the wreck of the SS Florizel, along with 92 others, her grandfather, the shipowner, had a statue of Peter Pan (pictured) made in her memory?
  • Looks good, @Edwardx:. That blurb is 201 characters, so slightly over, but changing "drowned" to "died" would take care of that. Thanks for the review, IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @IgnorantArmies:. After a bit more tweaking, we now have ALT3. There would now be enough characters for "drowned", but I doubt we could confidently state that all 94 died in that manner! Edwardx (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg (Not sure if this is waiting on my approval, but the above is fine, though I might just slip in an Oxford comma and flip the sentence order a little). IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 5[edit]

Pius Walder

Elvis? Pius Walder!

  • ... that long after the violent death of poacher and woodcutter Pius Walder (pictured), the case led to violent quarrels in TV talkshow and on graveyards?
  • ALT1:... that hairstyle, sideburns, live and death of Austrian poacher Pius Walder (pictured) were used as role model for a Tatort police procedural film called Elvis lebt! (Elvis is alive)?
  • ALT2:... that Sociologist Roland Girtler wrote both a scientific paper and a "shot through cookbook for poached game" about the 1982 death of Austrian woodcutter and poacher Pius Walder (pictured)?
  • Reviewed: Lutefisk (band)

Created by Serten (talk), Yngvadottir (talk). Nominated by Serten II (talk) at 01:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

Painter Run

Painter Run in its lower reaches

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 13:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  • What page is the confederacy thing on? EEng (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Jakec
  • @EEng: 55-56. Sorry I didn't respond earlier; the nomination slipped my mind. --Jakob (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Shortia galacifolia

Shortia galacifolia in bloom

  • ALT1 ... that specimens of Shortia galacifolia (pictured) were not found in the wild for 89 years?
  • Reviewed: Balanophora fungosa
  • Comment: 5x expanded on 4&5 Jan, 2015; to reviewer, hook is referring to fact no live specimen was known to have been found from 1788-1877.

5x expanded by HalfGig (talk). Self nominated at 22:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The plant did not really "go missing", it was just the fact that its original location was unknown. I suggest a better hook would be
  • ALT2 ... that Shortia galacifolia (pictured) was rediscovered nearly 100 years after its first sighting? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree that's best of the three hooks. I was trying to be "quirky". HalfGig talk 10:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Going for ALT2 then. There is a rule that one should not approve one's own hook, but this hook does not introduce any new facts so I think I am allowed to approve it. The article is new enough and long enough. The facts in the hook are reliably sourced and the image is suitably licensed. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Shankill United Predators F.C.

Created by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 09:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  • The article is long enough (1638 characters) and new. Its within the policy. The hook is interesting, cited and not too long (100 characters). Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

1967 Opium War

  • ... that when Kuomintang troops and Burmese smugglers fought one another in the 1967 Opium War, both sides got bombed?
  • Comment: The idea of a mule train of opium seems quaintly oldfangled. The idea of bombing smugglers and mules seems strange. Yet that is exactly what happened in this battle over 16 tons of illicit opium. While rival armies of drug smugglers fought over the opoid cargo, an ally of the United States swooped in, confiscated the opium, refined it to heroin, and sold it to U.S. troops in Vietnam, among others. This bizarre little battle in the back of nowhere forever changed the worldwide illegal drug trade.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 04:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Erk! Hate it when I do that. New QPQ supplied above.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Nice article, but I don't find the hook very interesting. Getting bombed was the fate of combatants in many 20th century wars. I would suggest something along the lines of:
... that after the communists took power in China, the Kuomintang Third and Fifth Armies became drug smugglers in Laos until their defeat in the 1967 Opium War?
QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Might I note that the above proposed new hook is factually incorrect?
  • The hook I suggested trades off the ambiguity of the word "bombed"; the idea was that it can mean "intoxicated" as well as "attacked". Maybe that's too subtle, though.
  • Then, too, I wanted to play off the incongruity of attacking a mule train with aircraft.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that the pun was entirely lost on me (I'm not a native speaker of English). As for the incongruity, that doesn't really come across because the mules aren't in the hook. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The pun is not real obvious, even to a native speaker of English. And I must confess I did drop one hook that mentioned the mules.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 6[edit]

Frances Jocelyn, Viscountess Jocelyn

Portrait miniature of Frances Jocelyn, Viscountess Jocelyn

  • ALT1:... that the collages of the Victorian photographer Lady Jocelyn (pictured) were said to have "subverted the realistic nature of photography"?
  • Reviewed: Naomi Grossman
  • Comment: Happy to hear other hook ideas!

5x expanded by Ruby2010 (talk). Self nominated at 21:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • I've struck the hook because I believe it's stated too strongly:
ALT2 ... that it has been suggested that Frances Jocelyn, Viscountess Jocelyn (pictured) was the illegitimate daughter of prime minister Lord Palmerston—​her mother's lover and future husband?
EEng (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Works for me! Ruby 2010/2013 03:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The copyvio check, date of expansion and QPQ review both seem to be in order. However, the sentence containing the hook used in ALT2 needs a direct citation. The citation(s) occur at the end of the paragraph, but not on the sentences in question. ALT1 is reliably cited to an offline source.-RHM22 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I have copied the appropriate citation into the lead paragraph (it was cited in the body). Thanks for reviewing! Ruby 2010/2013 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
(watching) I think we would need a comma after Viscountess Jocelyn, but it doesn't go well with pictured, therefore I prefer the piped link Lady Jocelyn as in ALT1, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my mistake. I meant ALT1; ALT2 was fine as it was (so you can feel free to remove that cite from the lede if you'd like). Specifically, this needs direct citations: "However, the historian K.D. Reynolds and others have argued that Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston was actually the father of Lady Emily and her brother William." Apologies again for my mistake.-RHM22 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Done! I have copied the citation to the appropriate spot. Reynolds claims this in their ODNB entry. Ruby 2010/2013 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Ok, it looks good now! As stated above, the length, date of expansion, copyvio check and QPQ are all fine. Both facts (ALT1 and ALT2) are cited to reliable sources, accepted AGF because they're on subscription-based websites. Nicely done. The article was a good, interesting read. By the way, I agree with Gerda regarding comma usage. Also, I rather dislike things like "it has been said/suggested/stated...", so I prefer ALT1 over ALT2 as it is worded, although the latter is more interesting, in my opinion. As a side note, that is a beautiful little portrait. I hope it gets chosen as the DYK image for that day.-RHM22 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the image comments, and prefer ALT1 also, not only because of the "suggested" but because it says more about the subject, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 Fort Bliss shooting

Created by TomStar81 (talk). Self nominated at 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

  • I've spent most of the day trying to figure out the review mandate and if I need to and I do not think I do, but if I do please ping me and I'll get right on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader)

Created by SusunW (talk). Nominated by Montanabw (talk) at 19:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

  • @Montanabw: per the updated QPQ rule, the nominator (not the creator) should have less than 5 DYK credits to be eligible for QPQ exemption. --User:Vigyani 08:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I donate a review - Museum of Death - for my friend who has much trouble about the umptieth try to get Mustang moved. I have an extra, because I wanted to nominate an article, had all ready and then found I had misread the month ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • IF that can be done, I'll start on Template:Did you know nominations/Honebuto no hōshin just in case. But this is the last time I ever help a new editor in this fashion, they can do their own noms in the future and I'll jsut help. The qpq might be abused for established editors, but should be waived for new ones who may not be familiar with this process. Sheesh! Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC).


Eisstadion Inzell in the snow

5x expanded by Rcsprinter123 (talk). Self nominated at 20:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article has been expanded and other DYK policies appear to have been met. I'd prefer one of the ice skating related hooks... perhaps change the wording at the end of ALT1 along the lines of "...have been held at the ice rink (pictured) in the small Bavarian town of Inzell?" Argovian (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I am making that ALT3:
Rcsprinter123 (indicate) @ 22:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pombo Musical

  • ... that Pombo Musical is a compilation of poems and fables done musical album?

Created by Luisnh1210 (talk). Self nominated at 05:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Reviewed:
Symbol voting keep.svgSymbol possible vote.svg The article length, date of expansion and copyvio check all are fine. Hooks are appropriately cited. Both hooks are interesting.--Miguelemejia (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The original hook doesn't make sense. Is it supposed to be "done as a musical album" or something like that? MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see the ambiguity. If you talk about Madonna's album what can of album do you think they are talking to? of course is a musical album; hence the title Pombo Musical. I like the the first hook over the second alternative since the first hook makes reference to the title and the poems of Rafael Pombo that inspire it.--Miguelemejia (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Your inability to see that the hook as written doesn't make sense made me wonder about how closely you perused the article. After just a quick glance, I see that the article is in desperate need of copyediting. The very first sentence is a mess. After seeing that, I skipped to the first sentence of the second paragraph, which is even worse. It's barely comprehensible: "After the finish the promotion of his last studio album El Rock de Mi Pueblo (2004), Carlos Vives finish his discographic contract with EMI Latin, fact that motivates to take a hiatus of his career and decide to concentrate in support to local artists and follow his career as producer and songwriter." I looked at a few other random sentences, which were about as bad, and I couldn't stand to read any more. They were enough to determine that the article in its current state is not ready to be linked to from the Main Page. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 12:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mandarax: I'm not involved in this article but have done quick copyedit of it. I do have to disclose that I don't understand Spanish so article creators are free to revert if I wrote something wrong. Hope that helps. Also an alternate hook:
  • Thank you very much, Cowlibob. That made a huge difference. I just did a quick skim, and I see that you actually made the article readable. I've removed the {{copy edit}} tag which I had added. As far as I'm concerned, the nomination can proceed. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]



  • ... that the cartoonist Charb (pictured) created the figures Maurice and Patapon during the trial against Maurice Papon?

Created by Iselilja (talk). Self nominated at 23:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Considering that the subject was murdered in the most talked-about attack of the time, the hook seems rather quaint. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, I know. I am very open to alternative suggestions. In some ways he is a bit too known right at the moment, "DYK that he was murdered?" Yes! - but people forget quickly. Iselilja (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, and well referenced, except for one place which I tagged in the article. I prefer Yoninah's ALT1. There seem to be several other editors who made significant contributions. They should be added to the credit list. -Zanhe (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Cite added. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I like it quaint and simple: ALT2: ... that the French satirical cartoonist Charb (pictured), who created the figures Maurice and Patapon, was a victim of the Charlie Hebdo shooting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Citation added, now good to go. I still prefer ALT1, but ALT2 works too. Image is public domain. I think this should be a lead hook, as a tribute to the high-profile victim of terrorism. -Zanhe (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Heartbeat Song (Kelly Clarkson song)

Kelly Clarkson

Created by HappyAppy10 (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

  • @Shhhhwwww: In case you are not aware, the rules have been updated and you need to provide a QPQ review. --User:Vigyani 09:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Emilio Madero

Emilio Madero

  • ALT1:... that Emilio Madero (pictured) was reported to have been killed 48 years before his actual death?
  • ALT2:... that Emilio Madero (pictured) was briefly appointed as governor of Sinaloa?
  • Reviewed: Pending Ornate shrew
  • Comment: Translated and expanded from the article on es.wp.

Created/expanded by G S Palmer (talk). Self nominated at 17:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting article on good sources (offline accepted AGF), with a good free image that suggests better than words "Mexican revolutionary". Hook: I would drop the "once". ALT1: why not 48? Seems impressive enough. ALT2: not quite as good as the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Yes check.svg Done. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg prefer ALT1 as even more unusual, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I slightly prefer ALT0, but ALT1 is fine. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 01:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
better ALT0 then, you are the author ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ohel Rachel Synagogue

Ohel Rachel Synagogue

Created by Difference engine (talk), Zanhe (talk), Deadaccount (talk). Nominated by Zanhe (talk) at 05:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Just within last 7 days at time of nomination; not a spin-off; long enough; both aspects of hook cited; neutral & within policy; QPQ; Earwig finds no copyvio; & image w/i copyright. Minor rephrase of hook for clarity. It's good to go.
    Comment₁: Didn't want to mention that it's the largest synagogue in East Asia? or didn't feel the Shanghai Municipal Gov't was a neutral enough source on that one?
    Comment₂: Neither here nor there as far as the DYK submission, but it would be helpful for the article if you were able to clear up the number of synagogues in Shanghai. CNN & the NYT have six, the local Jewish community claims seven, and the "Shanghai" entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol. 18, p. 396) has three.
    Comment₃: It's too bad we don't have a better recent pic. I think it looks lovely with the ivy. You in Shanghai? — LlywelynII 23:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I did wonder about the number of synagogues in Shanghai. Let's continue discussing that topic on the talk page. --Difference engine (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and as far as recent pictures go, I am not in Shanghai. Dunno about Zanhe or Deadaccount. I was there late last year, which is when I took the photo for the Ohel Moshe/Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum article. I didn't get a chance to visit Ohel Rachel, though. Sorry! --Difference engine (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Re comment1: I normally try to avoid citing hook facts from foreign language sources if possible, as people are understandably more reluctant to accept hooks they cannot verify.
Re comment2: see discussion of number of synagogues on talk page.
Re comment3: I'm not in Shanghai either, so can't take pictures. Hopefully in the future. -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Re re comment₃: Looks like it doesn't matter. Pics since the 2010 reopening seem to show the ivy was cleared. Oh well... — LlywelynII 06:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


  • ... that during the apartheid era South Africa's National Party won a by-election in Oudtshoorn after waging a "Boerehaat campaign"?

Improved to Good Article status by HelenOnline (talk). Self nominated at 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Recent GA nominated on time, QPQ done. Each para is sourced with at least two sources. AGF on hook as the specified page is not available under preview. Vensatry (ping) 17:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Vensatry, you can preview page 68 of the second source here, see last sentence of second paragraph and third footnote. HelenOnline 10:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but the ref. says the page no. to b 117. Vensatry (ping) 16:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That mid-sentence ref is also available under preview if you search for 117 in the book, but it is not relevant to the hook only the preceding phrase in the sentence regarding language demographics of supporters of the opposition party. HelenOnline 22:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Vensatry: did you do the requisite close paraphrasing checks? Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: I always thought copy-vio checks are an integral part of WP:GA?. I had to AGF on the nominator in this regard. Vensatry (ping) 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vensatry: believe it or not, we have also found copyvios in GA noms at DYK, so we have to re-check these articles by DYK rules, too. Here is a handy tool to check copyvios on all articles. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wa (watercraft)

Yes check.svg Done - QPQ verified.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that in 1788 a wa (pictured), arrived in Spanish Guam, stating they had always traded there but stopped after witnessing European cruelty?

Created by Pratyeka (talk), 7&6=thirteen (). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () 13:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC) at 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC).


  • Comment - Here is a crop of the article 1911 picture. Don't know if you can use that. Probably your prospects below will come up with a better picture. Is this picture one of those canoes?
  • Regarding the crop ... you've cropped out the bottom of the outrigger! A re-crop would be in order, so I'll upload one on top of your original. This one also differs in that it is based on the improved black and white conversion of the source image I just uploaded. prat (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the new image... Well found! Yes, it definitely appears to be a Palau-made wa. We can consider using that image though if we do it would be best to photoshop out the background and other model in the top right to a clear white. Would be great if someone else can do this and upload to commons as I'm very busy today (visiting Sydney Flying Squadron, a sailing club on Sydney harbour. I had hoped to raid the Australian National Maritime Museum library for a higher resolution copy of the lithograph, but just learned "The library is open to the public by appointment only from 10.00 am - 4.00 pm Monday to Wednesday (excluding public holidays)." ... fail. Maybe State Library of New South Wales has it? The plot thickens...). prat (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, we can't use it: Unfortunately it's also under a non-commercial license so we can't use it. prat (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Idea - Ask them to lower their license. The odds are in your favor they WILL!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like a fine idea, unfortunately I can't see any way to contact them... perhaps because there isn't any, or perhaps because I don't have a Flickr account. prat (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also and anyway, I'm not sure how accurate that model is .. it has rope out to the outrigger which I haven't seen on any photographs and its prows appear simplistic. This may have something to do with the apparently small scale and the suggestion that, allegedly unlike some of the other models such as the one held in the Australian National Maritime Museum, it wasn't built by actual traditional canoe builders in the local tradition but rather some fly-by-night outsider with correspondingly limited comprehension of the construction techniques and materials. prat (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Cann't comment on the boat, as this is outside my field. HOWEVER, concerning Flick: Yes, you have to get a Flickr account (free) = then use Flickr mail. I have discovered that about 70% lower their license accordingly IF you say you are going to us it for a Wikipedia article. A good way to get pictures to use for articles. I use the following wording, that has worked for me: I write articles for Wikipedia. Your picture of (name and link) is interesting and would fit into one or more of the articles I am presently writing on. There is at least one tag in use that makes your picture not usable on Wikipedia. Would you consider downgrading your copyright tags to ONLY "Attribution License" so I could use it on some Wikipedia articles. Do you have any other similar pictures? Thanks for your consideration. (sign). Just an idea you can use for the future.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Asked Pratyeka to designate picture choice. It is in progress. When I use Earwig's copyvio detector it returns a "97%" probabilty for this which may be true in that they copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. And they disclose the source. 7&6=thirteen () 14:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The best images we have found are unavailable due to CC-NC licensing. I have asked Ravn (listed as a wikipedian photographer in Berlin) (no response yet) to go shoot them again since that's the location of the models. Hopefully this will solve the problem, otherwise we can try a copyright release process but I've done one of those recently and it was painful. prat (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As a backup, also asked Wribln (pointed out legal issues: working through) and Usteinhoff (no response yet) and SDKmac (no response yet) and Purodha (no response yet) and Jimengna (no response yet) and Jed (fail: not in Berlin right now) and Kurt Jansson (fail: no longer in Berlin) and LezFraniak (no response yet). Hopefully someone will respond. prat (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I posted some requests to various parts of German Wikipedia and we have a reluctant volunteer... estimated roughly early next week. prat (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Wribln had a look in to this over the weekend and concluded that at least one of the German museums in question requires written signoff from the museum bureaucracy in order to publish photographs or recordings from inside the museum. This means we are possibly in for a long bureaucratic wait... and thus the whole idea of going to snap some quick shots is temporarily dead in the water. Perhaps we should go ahead with current images? prat (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg - Good To Go. New enough at 2 days, long enough at 7000 characters. Referenced properly. Did not detect any copyvio problems. Pictures copyright free. Original hook and ALTs check out as sourced. QPQ done.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment FYI, I did a QPQ. 7&6=thirteen () 16:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Definitely - covered! BTW, really nice article. Somebody (experienced editors) put a lot of work into it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we should wait for the picture. See talk for a (opinion) better picture, which unfortunately we can't use on the main page. But we have a volunteer waiting in the wings, and I have high hopes. 7&6=thirteen () 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

List of terrorist attacks in France

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nominated at 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

  • The article is new and long enough.Symbol question.svg The list includes 19th century events which were not described as terrorist attacks in their corresponding articles. Taking in consideration definition of terrorism (... and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians)), they should not be considered as such. Napoleon was not neutral non-combatant. Symbol question.svgThe article mentions UTA Flight 772 which is not listed. Without it the article would have less than 1,500 characters. As far as I know, French airplanes are considered as part of French territory and are under sovereign French jurisdiction? If that is so, this attack should be included in the list and number of killed people increased to over 200. If not, this nomination has length issue. Symbol question.svg The citation which supports hook assertion does not mention total number of people killed in terrorist attacks in France since 1961. Are there some sources which does? QPQ done. The hook is interesting and not too long.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not going by the corresponding articles (as you know, Wikipedia articles can't be used as citations) but by the cited source in this list - the newspaper Le Parisien, which here lists (and graphs) the casualty tolls of attacks in France since 1800. The 19th century attacks were assassination attempts which did not harm the targets but did kill and injure a lot of non-combatants (basically anyone in the vicinity), so even if Napoleon was not a "neutral non-combatant" (whatever that means in this instance) the victims who were collateral damage certainly were. The numbers are simply a cumulative addition of the cited casualty tolls in each attack. Because each individual number is cited, there's no need for a separate source for the simple maths of adding them all up. Finally, because the article is about attacks in France I've not listed UTA 772. The main cited source doesn't either. It's fair enough to mention it as having the highest toll (as I've done) but because it didn't happen in France I don't think it belongs in a list of attacks in the country. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't speak French. Does source you pointed to describe 19th century events as "terrorist attacks"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is a discussion of historical attacks ("attentat[s] terroriste") in France, starting with the Charlie Hebdo attack and saying that "you have to go back to the 19th century to the attempted assassinations of Napoleon and Louis-Philippe" to find comparable attacks. The bar graph in the middle of the article lists the 19th century events alongside the 20th century ones. It's not a modern phenomenon by any means - let's not forget that the word terrorism originated in France as far back as the 18th century. Prioryman (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but I don't think source you pointed to describe 19th century events as "terrorist attacks". I used Google Translate and it says that Charlie Hebdo massacre was immediately qualified as terrorist by Hollande. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added three additional sources which describe the events as terrorist acts or their perpetrators as terrorists. Hopefully this resolves the issue. Prioryman (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The article has 1564 characters, which is slightly over the criteria but only because of UTA 722 (which does not belong to the scope of this article). Without UTA 772 the article has about 1300 characters which is not enough and should be expanded.
  • Can you please present a quote from "The Foundations of Modern Terrorism", page 53, which says that attempt by Giuseppe Mario Fieschi to assassinate King Louis Philippe I was terrorist attack?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • First, it's not your job as a DYK article reviewer to decide what is within the scope of the article. You are meant to assess whether the article length is a minimum of 1500 characters - that's the limit of your responsibility as a reviewer. UTA 722 is in scope, as it's the deadliest attack in terms of French lives lost, so it needs to be mentioned in the narrative but not in the list, as it was not within Metropolitan France. It's mentioned in that specific context in the cited Le Parisien article. Second, I would have thought the Fieschi incident's categorisation was clear enough as it's covered in a chapter on "The Foundations of Modern Terrorism", but to make the point even clearer I've changed the citation to another source which describes "the assassination attempt on Louis-Philippe, orchestrated by the Corsican terrorist Fieschi." Prioryman (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. You first said that article in Le Parisien presents 19th century events as "terrorist attacks", although it does not.
  2. Then you brought other sources claiming they present 19th century events as "terrorist attacks", leaving Le Parisien as source (why?).
  3. I picked only one of them and asked for quote to check what you said. And Voilà. It did not.
Instead to acknowledge issues with your source misinterpretations you began with questioning my job here. My job as reviewer is of course not limited to determintion of the article length. Me as a reviewer have also to check if article meets core policies and guidelines. This topic deserves to be treated with care and attention it deserves. That is why I politely ask you, before I conclude this review, to please present quotes from all three sources used in section about "19th century" to check if they really describe 19th century events as "terrorist attacks".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Le Parisien discusses all of the 19th century events in the context of the most recent attacks, saying explicitly that you have to go back 180 years to find anything comparable in terms of the toll (for some reason disregarding the 1961 train bombing). I would suggest that the problem here is not misrepresentation of sources but your apparent lack of reading comprehension. Napoleon's Wars: An International History refers to "the terrorist bomb that almost cost Napoleon and Josephine their lives". Who was Who at Waterloo: A Biography of the Battle refers to "the assassination attempt on Louis-Philippe, orchestrated by the Corsican terrorist Fieschi". Creativity and Crime: A Psychological Analysis states that "as the case of Felice Orsini [who carried out the attack on Napoleon III] illustrates, terrorism ... often involves the application of cunning and ingenuity". The book also specifically covers Orsini's attack as a case study of terrorism, in a chapter called "Terrorism: A Case Study". You really can't get much clearer than that. Prioryman (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. So Le Parisien points to the 19th century events "to find anything comparable in terms of the toll" without qualifying those events as "terrrist attacks"? It is neccessary to be very careful here because use of the term "terrorist" is subject to frequet misuse which actually started in France at the beginning of the 19th century when political opponents of the regime were indicriminatelly labeled as terrorsts.
  • What do you think about renaming I proposed at article's talkpage?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Le Parisien quite clearly covers all of the attacks from 1800 to the present in the context of terrorism. The narrative and bar chart, which plots the toll of all of them, makes no distinction between 19th and 20th century attacks. Let's not forget that the French invented the concept of terrorism (the word is French) so this is something they sadly have a lot of experience of. As for renaming, I'm OK with it. Prioryman (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's not forget that people in France also invented the concept of misuse of the term. Le Parisien does not qualify 19th century events as terrorist, and present them together with 20th and 21th century events because they are comparable in terms of toll. An attempt to murder Napoleon organized by his political opponents can hardly be referred to as terrorism. Presenting Napoleon connected assassination attempts as terrorist incidents together with contemporary terrorist incidents could diminish real terrorist nature of the latter. I still believe:
    1. this article should not cover Napoleon connected assassination attempts and
    2. that it should be expanded to have more than 1,500 characters of the text which covers its scope.
  • I would appreciate if nominator could again reconsider my remarks. I am going to pass this nomination, AGF for non-English sources. Symbol voting keep.svg --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dog Island Lighthouse, Dog Island, New Zealand, James Balfour (engineer)

Dog Island Lighthouse

  • Comment: Haven't been here in eight months; hope the rules haven't changed too much.

Created by Schwede66 (talk). Self nominated at 07:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Pic is correctly licenced but could do with a small crop IMHO. Edited the hook to bold only one article (assume that is how it should be done). Hook is correctly formatted. Article is well referenced. Hook fact is not stated in the lighthouse article (the one stated to be the subject of the nom). It is stated in the Balfour article. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: I think this is a three article nom. Schwede66 will probably have to provide three QPQs (with his 200+ DYK credits). Care to review the other articles? Fuebaey (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind but it won't be quick! Does that mean we need three separate noms and three diff hooks? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Nah, there's no limit to the number of nominated articles in a hook, as long as they meet the criteria. The oldest nom on this list (scroll up) is currently a seven article hook and there is another with 37 lying around. Not the most though. Fuebaey (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I was completely unaware of this matter. Where are the rules for this sort of review (assuming there are any)? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Same as if it were a single nom. Only specific criteria would be in regards to the length of the hook (supplementary rule C3). Fuebaey (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, this got some attention a lot faster than I thought and had hoped for. The Balfour article isn't ready yet (but meets DYK requirements), but this had to be nominated for the oldest of the three articles to not drop off the list. Yes, three articles are nominated, as per the name of the listing. Yes, I will have to do three QPQs. Thanks for your suggestion of cropping the photo; that is done. Question to anybody here - do all the hook facts need to be confirmed in all three articles? I'm asking because Balfour's drowning has nothing to do with Dog Island or its lighthouse, so it would be totally out of place in those articles. I have shown my original hook as Alt1, and I much prefer it to the modified version for two reasons. Firstly, it is somewhat ironic to drown when you are the marine engineer. Secondly, it is even more ironic if you drown while travelling to the funeral of a drowned friend and colleague. The hook as modified has lost all those components and is, in my opinion, too bland. Lastly, may I point out that the lighthouse article turned out pretty good (I reckon it's not far off GA); reviewers may want to consider whether they recommend for the hook to be used as the lead. Schwede66 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Sorry, I think I should leave this to a more experienced reviewer. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I have experience with a 30-in-1 nomination in which I insisted that the hook fact appear in all 30 articles. However, I have since seen other editors waive this requirement, especially for multiple hooks such as this, where the facts don't fit into every article. I agree with Schwede's contention that the original hook is the best hook. For the first part of the hook, which contains all the article links – ... that James Balfour, designer of the tallest lighthouse in New Zealand (pictured) on Dog Island – all these hook facts appear and are cited inline in all 3 articles. I am willing to IAR and accept the added fact, drowned while travelling to the funeral of a colleague, as an interesting twist to the hook; this latter fact is cited and verified only in James Balfour. All 3 articles meet requirements of newness, length, neutrality, adequate referencing, and no close paraphrasing seen. Hook facts verified and cited inline. Image is freely licensed.
  • My only reservation to concluding the nomination is the choice of QPQs. QPQ1 is still in progress, and therefore cannot technically be used as a QPQ. There also doesn't seem to be much in the way of a review by this nominator for QPQ2. Very good work and follow-through on QPQ3. Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding has always been that you have to do a review and that counts as a QPQ; there is no such requirement that the review has to result in a final acceptance or decline of a nomination. Or is that something that has been recently added to the rules? Regarding the amount of effort put into the QPQs, I can guarantee you that I have put as much time into QPQ3 as you would normally use to review three nominations! Schwede66 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: could you help me here, please? I am trying to understand the guidelines you've mentioned to me on previous nominations. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, back when I was learning the ropes, Orlady explained to me that so long as a complete review was done by the reviewer, it counted as a QPQ even if that review didn't end in a tick and more rounds were required before the nomination was eventually approved or rejected. It wasn't fair to hold the QPQ hostage to the nominator's subsequent actions. The key here is "complete review": all the aspects were covered, not just a single failing. QPQ1 and QPQ3 are certainly fine in this regard. For QPQ2, my reluctance is only because the January 10 review doesn't cover policy issues like neutrality and close paraphrasing—the latter is a concern given that some of the lengthy delay on this nomination was due to a copyvio Premise section that, when deleted, brought the article below 5x expansion and required new material to be added to make up the difference. But perhaps Schwede66 had seen Thine Antique Pen's original review which said there weren't copyvios, but missed the copyvio discovery later in the process. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I did see the copyvio discussion, but it had been removed and that brought the article below the required 5x expansion. That's why I commented on it being, by then, long enough. Schwede66 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I get it. You are worrying because I didn't specifically comment on copyvio myself. Ah well, I shall have another look at it. Schwede66 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Schwede66, for checking. So far as I'm concerned, you've now done everything I could want for QPQ2, and indeed for all three QPQs. Over to you, Yoninah. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, @BlueMoonset: I will remember Orlady's advice on QPQs in future. The nominator has met the QPQ requirement on all 3 articles. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 8[edit]

William Egon of Fürstenberg

  • ... that William Egon of Fürstenberg was a Prince in the Holy Roman Empire who was making 90,000 livres a year as a French agent when he was arrested for treason?

5x expanded by 1bandsaw (talk). Self nominated at 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Caproni Ca.60

The Caproni Ca.60 experimental flying boat on Lake Maggiore, 1921

Moved to mainspace by MLWatts (talk). Self nominated at 13:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Long Distance Call (Muddy Waters song)

Created by Drmies (talk). Self nominated at 19:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

  • I have no idea what it means for song to "contain exploitation of migration". EEng (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg If the original hook is too confusing, perhaps use ALT1 then. George Ho (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be difficult, but what does it mean for a song to be "originated from" another song? A does it mean adapted? Based on? I'm serious. This makes no sense. EEng (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed to inspired. George Ho (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That at least makes sense. EEng (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 9[edit]

Tenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida

  • Comment: Expanded article. I'm exempt from review requirement (<5 DYK credits...I've only nominated one DYK that's approved, but yet to be featured). Note "Juvenile Court" is capitalized as that is the way the division is capitalized in the 10th Judicial Circuit (article subject), ie. it's referring to the Juvenile Court, whereas the link is not capitalized because it's referring to the generic term for a juvenile court.

5x expanded by AHeneen (talk). Self nominated at 23:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg This articles relies solely on the circuit court's official website. Information must be changed; secondary sources must be added. Primary sources don't have to be replaced, but I can't pass this nomination. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll try to source more of the information from other sources within a few hours. AHeneen (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this issue has been resolved and no longer hinders a DYK. I've had a lot of trouble finding non-primary sources for the "Divisions" section and no non-primary source that lists all the judges. The only way I could think of fixing the refs in that section would be to find a reference for every single judge being part of the circuit, but not a reference that covers all of them. This was the case for the courthouses section, I could only find references for the individual courthouses being part of the circuit, but not the opposite: a list of all courthouses within the circuit. Reliable primary sources may be used on Wikipedia, as long as they cover facts that are straightforward and not exceptional; the information in the "Divisions" section is straightforward and presents nothing exceptional, so I think that the primary source is ok here. The history section relies largely on two PDF files hosted on the website of the article's subject, but I don't believe they are primary sources. One is a short history of the local courts, written by a historian from a local historical society. The other is a transcript of a ceremony held for the circuit's centenary, during which historian Dr.Canter Brown, Jr. gave a presentation about the history of courts in the area; the material in the "history" section that this source supports comes from Dr.Brown's presentation. So, despite being hosted on the circuit's website, I believe both of these are secondary sources. AHeneen (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Another issue would be the writing itself. Perhaps it needs massive cleanup and copy editing. However, this would affect the size of the article. Will you clean up the writing? George Ho (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The writing should reflect the sources. On the other hand, cleanup may not be required. If I'm mistaken about the writing, I will add the red(irect) icon. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are talking about. The writing does reflect the sources. As mentioned above, in the case of the "courthouses" section, I found and added to the article non-primary sources that say that the courthouses are part of the tenth circuit, but only the primary source (8) says that all of these are part of the circuit. The only other references that may not be clear are the map (6) used to support the present-day counties (it doesn't show/name the present-day counties, but shows the old boundaries and is used with ref 7 which does show the boundaries & name both the former and present-day counties) and the source in the footnote, which does state "History-...chs. 6197, 6198, 1911" at the bottom of the first section (since the state statues have been re-ordered many times, "History" is basically a footnote in sections that lists the sections/chapters in former versions that the section supersedes). So I don't really see what major issues would require a cleanup or re-write. AHeneen (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Never mind. I'll leave this to another reviewer then. At least the sourcing issue is resolved for now. George Ho (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tomislav Smoljanović

  • ... that Tomislav Smoljanović's "guerrilla science approach" uncovered financial ties between medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies in the United States?
  • Reviewed: QPQ pending

5x expanded by GregorB (talk). Self nominated at 21:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg, really interesting, well written, neutral, new article. I suggest that the hook should be slightly rewritten. The hook states that his "guerrilla science approach" uncovered financial ties between researchers and a company, but his "guerrilla science approach" only followed the discovery of those financial ties, according to my reading of the article. The hook refers to "pharmaceutical companies", but only one company is mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Smoljanović's biography is primarily based on sources written in Croatian so I cannot cheque its accuracy; I would really appreciate if an English source were added. Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, it's "uncovered" not in the sense of "discovered", but "made widely known": he became aware of these ties before the bulk of his letter-writing campaign, but it helped in making them public knowledge. "Pharmaceutical companies" is meant in a generic sense - while the company in question is named in the article, for understandable reasons I wanted to avoid naming it in the hook. These are both quite valid remarks though, and I'd certainly appreciate ALT suggestions if you feel these are necessary. Here's one that hopefully takes care of your second remark:
  • ALT1 ... that Tomislav Smoljanović's "guerrilla science approach" uncovered financial ties between medical researchers and an American pharmaceutical company?
  • There are actually four English sources about the medical affair (NYT, Medpagetoday, Stanford and Reuters) in the article, two of which mention Smoljanović (plus several more English sources on peripheral stuff). I believe all statements in the article that could be supported by provided English-language sources actually are. I'm not aware of any English-language sources that would significantly expand upon those already present, but I will definitely double-check and add them if they exist. (Also, do you have particular statements in mind?) Of course, one can only go so far, and WP:NONENG applies. GregorB (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I must have wrongly expressed myself: yes, the presentation of the medical affair is based on English sources, but, his biography (the description of his sport career and his studies before the medical affair) is almost solely based on Croatian sources. Of course, it can be accepted AGF. What about ending the hook with "... and a pharmaceutical company in the United States" or with "... and a major producer of medicins"?
  • No problem - his sports career actually has English sources only for the most prominent facts (2 medals), I'll try and see if this could be improved upon. I'll try to supply additional ALTs too. GregorB (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud

3-part setting of "Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud"

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 22:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC).

  • I added two ALTs to make the nomination more interesting. --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for trying. I don't like the two brackets in a row, and don't think we need the first line in three languages. If you could word the contrast of war and a (at least in the beginning) light summer hymn, I would appreciate it, - or this idea to become a "good tree" in the Lord's garden which I don't recall anywhere else. It's my mom's favourite song, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Creating a hook fewer than 200 characters isn't easy. Actually, the image won't be used if the hook doesn't become a lead. George Ho (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, I don't know if I should call it a hymn or a poem. If a poem, can you hymnpoem? Thank you. George Ho (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Monacanthus ciliatus, Monacanthus chinensis

Monacanthus ciliatus

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 07:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

James Halman

Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, in 1690

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self nominated at 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough, created within the proper time frame. Per CorenSearchBot no sign of copyright violation. Random googling of three phrases shows no copyright violations. NPOV and meets policies. Both hooks cited correctly. QPQ done. Good to go, I slightly prefer the first hook, but the second works also, although readers probably won't know what "cum judicio et dilectu" means. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Gardens Alive!

  • ... that 40% of Gardens Alive's revenue comes from non-gardening merchandise?

Moved to mainspace by Gardens12345 (talk), ThaddeusB (talk). Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk) at 19:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC).

Morris B. Belknap

Morris B. Belknap

Created by Mitzi.humphrey (talk), Acdixon (talk). Nominated by Hirolovesswords (talk) at 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg The length and copyvio check are both fine. The article was nominated just prior to the seven day limit following its creation. Both hooks are reliably cited to offline sources. I personally prefer the original hook over ALT1. In addition, the image is public domain in the United States, having been published prior to 1923.-RHM22 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Reviewed: To follow Boerehaat
  • Comment: Promoted to GA on 9 Jan

Improved to Good Article status by Ssven2 (talk). Nominated by Vensatry (talk) at 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

What Is Love (TV series)

  • ... that Jade Chou was once compared to her character in the What Is Love series because they are both in their thirties and still single?

Created by 001Jrm (talk). Self nominated at 23:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Market Cross, Cheddar

The Market Cross in Cheddar

  • ... that the Market Cross (pictured) in Cheddar has stood for 500 years, but been damaged by traffic twice since 2000?

Created by Rodw (talk). Self nominated at 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Creation date and length are ok, and the article is very well referenced; the hook is also referenced, is interesting and its length is ok. The image has a Creative Commons license. The author did his QPQ. Good to go! Alex2006 (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ty Hensley

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Radioplane
  • Comment: As you can see from the article history, I created this as a redirect on November 12, 2012. In the baseball project, we have a standing consensus to use these minor league player pages to incubate articles on people who may become notable. This is that Nov 12, 2012 edit where I created the content. As of a few days ago, it was still there. To make it as easy as possible here, I simply unmerged that content with this edit, which had 688 B of prose. Now, it's over 3800, which is 5x. Given the nature of the incident that happened, I'm open to discussion on what a good and appropriate hook would be.

5x expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self nominated at 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

The customer is not a moron

Created by Ritchie333 (talk). Self nominated at 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Sources check out; size is okay (1750 characters). Copyvio check passed. Created on January 9 so new enough. Meets proper content policies. Hook properly sourced. All good. Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hooks must present verifiable facts. The original hook does not contain any facts, and is not acceptable. ALT1 was struck without comment. Was it struck because there was something wrong with it, or just because the reviewer preferred the original? ALT1 does present facts, so if it checks out, that would be fine. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 03:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Struck out of preference. Undone now. You concerns definitely are reasonable. I might have put "what catches the eye" in preference. My mistake. ALT1 is properly sourced and, as you said, contains verifiable facts. Unless there are any further concerns, Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. Thanks, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thought the basic hook was a nice teaser but put in ALT1 for the reasons stated above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 10[edit]

Truss (unit)

Trusses loaded on hay-carts in Cumberland Market in 1915

  • ... that the legal weight of a truss (load pictured) depended on the time of year?
  • Reviewed: Seth Andrews
  • Comment: The article is currently at AFD, where it has been rescued from a large bundle, and so the DYK needs to wait upon the outcome.

5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk), Shevonsilva (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 17:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC).

Chongming Island

This map is wrong!
But it's all we have!
(in English)

But seriously:

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 04:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Good work expanding the former redirect. Article meets most criteria, but several paragraphs need referencing, under Geography, Government, Infrastructure, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words.

    The unsourced sections have separate causes. All specific, contestable claims in the #Geography section are sourced: particularly the island's area, which is constantly expanding and therefore completely different in older sources. The #Location section of that article can be verified by a map and sourcing is needless; it might be done thoroughly enough by the EoS entry or they might have omitted some particulars. The #Enclave section of that article is (mostly) sourced at the corresponding (linked) articles. The specific names of the #Government section can be verified (somewhere) on the linked official site. Other areas—such as #History—have information translated from the linked Baidu Baike &c. articles... they're probably not off and the information can be kept pending some info to the contrary but at the same time they're not RS that we should be citing.

    More to the point, though, none of that has anything to do with the hooks, all of which are sourced. (I'll strike ALT3 as solely sourced to a Chinese-language site & close to the hook I'm using for the enclaves' own DYK nomination.) I'll take this opportunity to object to the idea (not particular to this review: I've seen others start in on it as well) that DYK involves passing GA criteria: If you really feel that it is necessary to DYK that no section include any unsourced fact, I can completely delete all of those sections of the article and still have enough left to pass... then restore it after passing... but hopefully you realize that's nuts and the requirement is that we're not lying, we're not biased, and the hook itself is sourced.

    Obviously, the #Geography and #Infrastructure sections have no issues (unless the bridge to Haimen just got finished); presumably, your Chinese or Googlefu is good enough to check the names of the townships if they concern you; are there any statements or areas that seem legitimately sketchy? (See this conversation for an example of what I'm talking about, where due diligence requires not just AGF from the author about a major point in his article.) — LlywelynII 04:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but WP:DYKSG#D2 requires every paragraph have at least one inline citation, not just the hook fact. I've been directly involved in 300+ reviews, both as reviewer and as nominator, and have never seen this rule relaxed. If certain content is sourced at linked articles, it should be easy enough to copy the sources over. We as editors should not shift the burden of locating the sources to the readers. If you can't find any source to support the content, then it probably should be deleted or commented out. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Pat Connaughton

5x expanded by Muboshgu (talk), Dale Arnett (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I don't understand the maths of the hook. It is postulated that he could have earnt $1 million if he just played baseball. As it is, he earnt $428,100. Take one away from the other, and you're left with just over half a million. Other than this, the article is fine. The length and expansion both check out fine, and spot-checks reveal no evidence of close ara-phrasing or copyvio. Still waiting for a QPQ though. Harrias talk 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You're right. It's not well enough articulated. The source said he could've gotten upwards of $1 million, but he did sign for $400K. We could go with the direct quote...
  • ALT1 ... that Pat Connaughton "cost himself some money" by not choosing between baseball and basketball?
  • QPQ on the way. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg It doesn't seem accurate to say that he didn't choose. It looks like he chose to honor his commitment to play basketball. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What I meant is that he didn't choose one or the other. If he had agreed to drop basketball to focus on baseball, he would've gotten more $$$. Multi-sport athletes at the professional level are rare. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

John Norton (soldier)

General John Norton

Created by Deadbeef (talk). Self nominated at 10:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

Formula 1 (board game)

  • ... that the cardboard speedometers used in the early 1960s Waddingtons' board game Formula 1 are branded SMITHS in that company's typeface of the era?

Created by Arb (talk). Self nominated at 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. However, most of the article is not cited by inline sources and the source for the hook is the editor's interpretation of a photograph. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair points and good to get critical eyes on the article. Have added inline sources to the section on official play; the rest seems to be covered (one reference at the start of a list being sufficient, is it not). Can't do much about the original hook; it's self evident but nonetheless... Have added an additional reference for the original hook but still somewhat tenuous. How about:
ALT1:... that Formula 1 is a motor racing themed board game originally published by Waddingtons in 1962?

Hemlock Run

  • ... that the Wisconsinan Till Moraine, Wisconsinan Bouldery Till, Wisconsinan Flow-Till, and Wisconsinan Till all occur near Hemlock Run?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 14:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Length, date, ALT1 hook's ref verified. All non-lede paragraphs have refs. All refs appear to be RS. No apparent close paraphrasing. QPQ done. ALT1 is more interesting of the two hooks. GTG. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hans Rosenfeldt

Hans Rosenfeldt

Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 09:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. AGF Dutch and Swedish sources for hook. Gtg. --Jakob (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jakec: I just added an image to accompany the hook – would you be able to check it and confirm your tick? Thanks. 97198 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Image is someone's own work, CC-BY-SA, appears in the article. Good. --Jakob (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@97198, Jakec: I know this has been reviewed but how about this for an alternate hook?
ALT1... that Hans Rosenfeldt (pictured) creator of the Scandinavian crime series The Bridge which has spawned two international adaptations, briefly worked as a sea lion trainer? Cowlibob (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hager Mountain

Hager Mountain lookout

Created by Orygun (talk). Self nominated at 00:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Everything checks out, and this is good to go Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, how about if I change hook to highlight the Forest Service use period rather than the period available for public use.
ALT1: ... that the fire lookout station on Hager Mountain (pictured) in south-central Oregon is manned by a United States Forest Service employee from June through October?
Hopefully, this new hook solves the problem.--Orygun (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Either ALT is fine with me.--Orygun (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to decide between ALT hooks, as well as to do a more comprehensive review indicating what was checked. Yoninah (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT2 seems to be factually incorrect unless there's a reference to support the implied statement that the lookout station is consistently booked throughout the cooler months and winter (which seems unlikely). I don't think that the original hook was in any way advertising... Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 11[edit]

Francisco D'Andrade

File:Francisco D'Andrade as Don Giovanni by Julius Cornelius Schaarwächter.jpg

Created by Voceditenore (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough at time of nomination. More than long enough. Article is neutrally written and uses inline citations in all paragraphs. All prose original in thought, no copyvio detected. Hook format is correct, is neutral, and is directly tied to citations. File is free of copyright, being in the public domain. QPQ complete. A wonderful article that just screams for mainspace exposure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarns, Cumbria

  • ... that a farm was operating at Tarns, Cumbria, as early as the year 1200?

Created by Pitipaci (talk). Self nominated at 02:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - References 5 & 6 are unreliable as they are genealogy sites where anyone can write anything, not edited works. Ref 6, which supports the hook, can be replaced by the original source: [10] which the message board is just copying. An alternate for ref 5 should be found or the text removed.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article borders on original research at times (e.g. street signs, Google maps), but I'm inclined to give it a pass there; this is DYK, not GA after all. Otherwise, all is good other than the RS issue noted above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ornate shrew

Sorex ornatus relictus

  • ... that the tail of the ornate shrew (pictured) is bicolored?
Article should be "pretty" enough for DYK. I'll continue to work on it, with eye towards GA eventually. Gaff (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

5x expanded by Gaff (talk). Self nominated at 05:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough (nominated within two days of beginning expansion), long enough (>3000 characters, approximately 13x expansion), QPQ done. Article is appropriately cited with inline citations, neutral. No copyvio or close paraphrasing that I could detect. Image is appropriately licensed. Both hooks are within the character limit, supported by sources. Good to go. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lusaka Manifesto

Moved to mainspace by Pgallert (talk). Self nominated at 19:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Fails to meet core DYK eligibility criteria. Article expansion is not sufficient. It was 1,200 words in September. Article expansion appears to have started on January 11th. The article is currently 1,300 words. A five fold expansion would require 6,000 word article. Or the article need to be promoted to Good Article status. See Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_rules Gaff (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article was moved from Userspace January 11th, so it is new enough. Length is sufficient. Each paragraph is cited with appropriately formatted in-line citations. Hook is appropriately formatted and of sufficient general interest. The content of "hook" is mentioned in the lede paragraph, but not clearly cited there or in article text (or more likely, it is cited and I am just not seeing it). Please clarify the reference/citation (i.e. spell it out for a dummy). I found no close paraphrasing/plagiarism issues on review of some of the online references; will AGF on the rest, since article created by experienced editor. QPQ check done. No image to review (a copy of the signed original document might work, though I cannot find anything on Google image search). Gaff (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A second pair of eyes is always good... I thought the hook is sufficiently close to the second block quote in "Reception", but I have now inserted some clarification under "content". Thanks for reviewing! --Pgallert (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good. See above for full notes on review. Gaff (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

INTEGER Millennium House

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self nominated at 19:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Brahma Upanishad

A falcon in the sky

  • ... that according to the Brahma Upanishad, Prana is drawn into the Brahman through the nerve chords in a similar way a falcon (pictured) considers the sky as means of communication to reach its abode?

Spider web

ALT ... that according to the Brahma Upanishad, a living being controls all the senses similar to a spider, which weaves its web (pictured) with a single thread?

Created by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 17:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Kaivalya Upanishad

  • ... that the Kaivalya Upanishad exalts the one who sees without eyes and hears without ears?

Moved to mainspace by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Redtigerxyz (talk) at 16:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is new enough as it has been moved from user subpage to mainspace on January 11, 2015 and the article has been nominated for DYK on the same day. It is long enough as the current prose size is 3610 characters (594 words). Article respects core policies and guidelines. No copyvio detected. AGF to offline sources. Hook is neutral, interesting, and is cited with reliable source in the article. QPQ is done. GTG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Education and Democracy: The Meaning of Alexander Meiklejohn

Meiklejohn on the cover of Time magazine in 1928

Moved to mainspace by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 16:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Preity Zinta filmography

Created/expanded by FrB.TG (talk). Self nominated at 16:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New article, long enough and well-referenced. However the 'prostitute' part of the hook doesn't exist in the article. QPQ not done? --Khadar Khani (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Meets the criteria. Good to go! --Khadar Khani (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Abbot's Fish House, Meare

The Abbot's Fish House, Meare

5x expanded by Rodw (talk). Self nominated at 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article has been expanded more than 5 times over 10-11 January. Earwig's script reports no problems. Image has the correct licence. My concern is that the hook is a little vague, particularly with respect to the changing water levels around Glastonbury during the Middle Ages. How about ALT1 : ... that The Abbot's Fish House (pictured) is the only surviving monastic fishery building in England? ... which is verified by the English Heritage source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is fine by me.— Rod talk 17:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wimpy Operation

  • ... that the 1982 Wimpy Operation marked the start of armed resistance against Israeli troops in Beirut?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 13:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg 2192 B. Created on 11 January and nominated on the same day. NPOV. QPQ has been done. No plagiarism detected. Hook fact verified with Larkin's book. Good to go.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sessue Hayakawa: Silent Cinema and Transnational Stardom

Sessue Hayakawa

Moved to mainspace by Skr15081997 (talk). Self nominated at 12:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Length, date, hook checks out. Subscription-required reference accepted AGF. Photo on Commons. No copyvio or close paraphrase found in spot checks. --Soman (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard Withers

Created by Guerillero (talk). Self nominated at 05:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - everything checks out to me, and an interesting subject. However, I have taken the liberty to combine these alternate hooks into ALT4. If any of the alternative hooks are re-proposed, they must be directly cited (inline) in the article.
  • ALT4: ... that the first consecrated hermit in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Brother Richard Withers, bought his hermitage for US$1?
  • Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Arbitrarily0:, it's best to retain the original thread and add new hooks to the bottom so we can see the history of the nomination and review. You blanked all the alts, so I'm not sure what you mean by re-proposing them. I've restored the original hook and ALT hooks, and numbered yours as ALT4. Since you added text to the hook ("the first consecrated hermit in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia") that includes information which should be cited in the article, another reviewer will have to check your ALT4 per Rule H2. Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Yoninah! In summary, the inline citation for ALT4 must be confirmed by another editor. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 12[edit]

Five All Night, Live All Night

Created by Danpetitpas (talk), Hirolovesswords (talk). Nominated by Hirolovesswords (talk) at 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

Stephen G. Roszel

Stephen G. Roszel

Moved to mainspace by ThaddeusB (talk), Roszellmc (talk), Anne Delong (talk). Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk) at 04:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, cited, and free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Hook is cited and within policy. QPQ done. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to throw cold water, but the hook really falls flat. Two-hour sermons were common in that age. EEng (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably, but most people won't know that. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to offer it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Theodor Fischer (auctioneer)

Three Red Horses, Franz Marc, 1911. Sold by Fischer for the Nazis.

  • ... that auctioneer Theodor Fischer was described as "the focal point in all looted art transactions" in Second World War era Switzerland?
  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self nominated at 01:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

  • i don't understand the hook. Was he a fence? EEng (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Focal point is too vague. Suggest fence, conduit, dealer etc. EEng (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a quote. Edited the hook to make that clear. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

United States Navy staff corps

5x expanded by Antony-22 (talk). Self nominated at 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC).

Vainglory (video game)

Vainglory's main map, Halcyon Fold, demonstrates the increased graphics capabilities of the iPhone 6 and its new Metal graphics API

  • ... that The Guardian '​s iOS game of 2014, Vainglory, was chosen to demonstrate the iPhone 6's graphics capabilities (in-game map pictured) at the phone's launch event?

Improved to Good Article status by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

Hamo (Dean of York)

Created by Ealdgyth (talk). Self nominated at 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is two days old, long enough at 2.5K of prose, and there are no obvious copyright violations. I personally prefer ALT1, which is cited to Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300: Volume 6: York: Archdeacons: East Riding. Or, we could go for
    ALT2: ... that Hamo was nominated to be Archbishop of York, but Henry II did not approve?
    Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol confirmed.svg Outside review that Ritchie's ALT2 is supported by the source and that his gut feeling about copyvio is backed up by earwig's tool.

    My own feeling is that the original hook (since struck by its authoress) was more interesting than the other two, but it would need to be rephrased a bit: when I first read it, I thought that Hamo had bribed the electors/king/pope with a new church. Reading the article, Hamo was bought off by giving him the prebends from a separate church in order to withdraw his candidacy ...which (fwiw) is far more common than the article's current "candidature", although the OED backs up that Eald's vocabulary is just better than mine and that some people even say "candidateship". — LlywelynII 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Point of order - I did not strike the hook ... see diff. I'm open to other wordings on hook 1 ... I suck at hook writing. As for the vocab... too much time reading obscure Victorian historians is to blame. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Then I have unstruck it with rephrasing and more links to the items in question. As stated, I prefer it. — LlywelynII 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg So everything seems in order. Now we just need a 3rd party to come and choose among the OH, ALT1, and ALT2. — LlywelynII 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fuck It, We'll Do It Live

Improved to Good Article status by Cirt (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 12:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article has been approved to GA status within the past seven days, the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters, and it cites sources with inline citations. A QPQ review has been completed, and the hook works well. The hook's content is internally-cited and is verifiable. -- Caponer (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Not that I'm debating your close, but I wouldn't consider it a full review. Please provide another QPQ for this nomination. Fuebaey (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Fuebaey:, @Caponer: Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Ritchie333, it may satisfy Fuebaey more if you review one of the many DYK nominations from scratch. -- Caponer (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Caponer: Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Alright Ritchie333, you've outdone yourself. The hook is therefore approved (again) and is good to go for inclusion in Did you know. -- Caponer (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Francisco Urena

  • ... that Massachusetts Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Francisco Urena was the state's Veterans Services Director of the Year in 2008?
  • ALT1:... that Massachusetts Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Francisco Urena chose not to have a piece of scrap metal removed from his face?

Created by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 19:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC).

Martin Pistorius

  • ... that freelance programmer and author Martin Pistorius woke from a coma around age 14 to discover he could not move or communicate with others, something that was not fully detected by physicians until he was about 25?
  • ALT1:... that the father of locked-in syndrome sufferer Martin Pistorius woke up every two hours to care for his son to ensure that he did not develop bed sores?
  • ALT2:... that freelance programmer and author Martin Pistorius was believed to be in a persistent vegetative state but was actually suffering from locked-in syndrome?
  • ALT3:... that freelance programmer and author Martin Pistorius was believed to be in a persistent vegetative state but was actually suffering from locked-in syndrome, something that went predominantly undetected by physicians for 12–14 years?
  • Comment: I've made a few alts and I'm good with any of them getting picked up. The only somewhat wobbly thing is that Pistorius is somewhat general about when he regained consciousness because he couldn't really recall much initially. He believes that he spent about 12-14 years conscious but unable to communicate with others, so the dates are somewhat general. I was going to write one about his book but that would turn into a fairly lengthy sentence to explain the background and I think that covering the length of time he was unable to communicate would be catchier to the eye. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Tokyogirl79 (talk). Self nominated at 10:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 13[edit]

Haiyong Township, Qilong Township, Yonglongsha

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 23:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Could also restore bolding to Haiyong links, but it seems I'm a day late for technical consideration of it as a new article on its own. — LlywelynII 23:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've restored bolding to Haiyong for you. The stricter 7-day rule is generally interpret as for each article. With a multiple-article hook, you're allowed more time. Now you just need to provide an extra QPQ. -Zanhe (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you could merge the Chongming Island nomination into this one, making it a four-article hook, if you want. But please don't move the nomination template again, it would mess up with some bots. See instruction at the top the nomination page. -Zanhe (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blalock, Oregon

Created by Valfontis (talk), 78.26 (talk). Nominated by 78.26 (talk) at 15:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Comment I didn't create it, 78.26, you did, but thanks for the nod. :)

QT (musician)

  • ... that pop singer QT was conceived to market an energy drink of the same name?

Created by SummerSarah (talk), Hinnk (talk). Nominated by Hinnk (talk) at 07:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

  • "QT was conceived to market an energy drink" -- wow! Talk about having your kid's life all planned out! EEng (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Haha, I guess I've been working on this so long that I didn't even notice that. Would it be clearer to say "the concept for pop singer QT" instead? hinnk (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think you should bring in the fact that QT isn't a person, but a persona taken on by a performer. EEng (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Here are some alternatives. I'd lean toward ALT2 simply because when I was looking at the reference, it's more about "Hey QT" than the QT persona. hinnk (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that the persona for pop singer QT came as a way to market an energy drink of the same name?
ALT2 ... that the debut single by pop singer QT was conceived to market an energy drink of the same name?

Juana Wangsa Putri;

  • ... that former Indonesian taekwondo athlete Juana Wangsa Putri won two bronze medals at the Asian Games?

Created by Raymarcbadz (talk). Nominated by Annas86 (talk) at 06:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Eleanor Robinson

  • ... that Eleanor Robinson set a world record of 13 days, 1 hour, 54 minutes for a woman to run 1,000 miles (1,600 km)?

Created by FunkyCanute (talk). Self nominated at 15:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines

Pope Francis in South Korea, 2014

5x expanded by Hariboneagle927 (talk), Proxima Centauri (talk), Kevinbartolome (talk), Renzoy16 (talk), JinJian (talk), and PatTag2659 (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 08:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I'm only here to make the comment that this nomination was probably made a few hours too soon, before the pontif's visit had concluded. I don't think either of the hooks are up to scratch - ALT1 is okay but it is only saying what the official song of the visit was, ALT2 is simply a dry news report, ALT3 is confusingly long and makes little sense. News reports have been published in the last few hours saying that the crowds have been the largest ever for a Pope's visit, so I would suggest (1) the update is added to the article if it hasn't already (2) ALT3 goes along the lines of "......that Pope Francis (pictured) conducted a mass during his visit to the Philippines to a record-breaking 6 million people?" Sionk (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)