Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:DYK)
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
Stats WP:DYKSTATS

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

Contents

List of DYK Hooks by Date
Date # of Hooks # Verified
November 29 1
December 5 1
December 17 1
December 22 2
December 25 1
December 27 1
December 31 2
January 4 3
January 5 1
January 9 1
January 10 2
January 11 1
January 13 2
January 16 3
January 17 3 1
January 18 2
January 19 2
January 20 2 1
January 21 2
January 22 1
January 23 3
January 24 5
January 25 6 1
January 26 5 1
January 27 1
January 28 5
January 29 1
January 30 6 1
January 31 5
February 1 6
February 2 1
February 3 3 1
February 4 6
February 5 4
February 6 3 1
February 7 2
February 8 10
February 9 4
February 10 5
February 11 3
February 12 7
February 13 4 1
February 14 10 1
February 15 8
February 16 14
February 17 13 2
February 18 4 1
February 19 13 5
February 20 12 1
February 21 4
February 22 6
February 23 13 2
February 24 7 1
February 25 10 2
February 26 8 3
February 27 6 3
February 28 8 3
March 1 11 2
March 2 1
Total 277 34
Last updated 15:05, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
Current time is 15:58, March 2, 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 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.
I.
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.


II.
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.
III.
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]

Backlogged?[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.

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

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 [1], 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 [5]) 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 [6] "Around 8 million children go missing around the world every year, according to the International Centre for missing and exploited children", and [7] "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)
  • Either ALT2 -- which focuses not just on what the Wall Street Journal, etc., support (as the first hook does), but focuses on what both a primary source and the WSJ, etc. support (which Cas Liber said he was "not overly fussed about") ... or alternatively ALT3 ... seem appropriate to me. ALT2 seems hookier. Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Absolutely opposed to continuing claim that "800k children" go missing annually in the United States, per WP:AREYOUKIDDING?. There are only 60 million children in the country altogether. They have not all (mostly/generally/commonly) been traded from one family to another at some point in their life. (If we're talking about minors rather than children, say that.) The US—which makes up a bit over 4% of the world population—does not account for 10% of its child abductions and missing persons. The hook needs to be struck completely, pending some phrasing that expresses whatever actual neutral sources support. (WSJ fearmongering based on an advocacy group's press release—the only fact check involved in the article is whether or not they claimed that—does not actually count.) — LlywelynII 10:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Llewellyn -- As to the hookier ALT2 (though I gather this is not an issue for you for ALT3), perhaps you are mis-reading the sources.
First, we have RS sources. The RS sources here include, among others, a 2012 independent, high-level RS, Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pooling Resources to Fight Child Abuse and Abduction" that supports it ("It is estimated that some 8 million children go missing around the world each year and, in the U.S. ... roughly 800,000 children [are] reported missing."). BBC News also, among others, reports on the world-wide figure.
Second, we have a primary source. In addition to the RS sources that WP prefers. Which your comment suggest you may perhaps have missed. There is also the highly detailed primary source entitled "National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview", by the independent US Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which supports it directly and which is discussed in great detail itself in the article. This isn't as you suggest a press release of the organization. Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I know Welsh can be hard but, if the name is difficult, feel free to cut and paste or abbreviate. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but the effect of misspelling a name immediately above where you're typing comes off as rude. Meanwhile, I similarly have no doubt you've got the best intentions here but, no, you do not actually have any RS for the claim in the original hook, primary or otherwise.

    The WSJ is just stating that someone somewhere uses that figure, not vouching for their methodology or its accuracy (or even their identity). The actual source is whoever gave them the press release and that could use a looking over to make sure it is a RS. If you want to emend the hook so it no longer stating a fact but correctly reads "some claim" it to be a true figure, this WSJ article would still be a questionable source for that, since it provides no source for its statistic and implies it was provided by its subject's interest group. We don't know how WP:FRINGE they are. (NISMART isn't fringe at all, but the WSJ doesn't identify them as the source of their number.) Your BBC "article" suffers from the exact same problem.

    You're right that the DOJ should be a reliable source for this kind of information. Too bad a) the figure in the article's lead and body is sourced to the non-RS WSJ article mentioned above which only speaks to claims and not facts; b) the actual study—which inexplicably isn't being used as a source for its existence or the number missing—reports a figure just under 800,000 (nothing an "almost" or "about 800,000" couldn't have fixed, granted, if it weren't belied by more recent figured below); c) it's sixteen years out of date for its findings (published 2002 but its estimate was for 1999; nothing an "a decade or two ago" couldn't fix, granted).

    More essentially, you are completely misrepresenting the fact being presented. There are hundreds of thousands of police reports of missing minors (including teenagers only loosely considered "children") filed every year (including duplicates); the total number of all missing persons reports of all ages from an actual RS (the FBI) was 627,911 for 2013 (which is no longer even "almost 800,000"); the total number of found and cleared that year was 630,990. The numbers (as represented above) are so obviously fraudulent this shouldn't need saying but the actual number of open missing person cases is an order of magnitude lower than it is being presented here: 84,136 of which all juveniles under 18 account for 33,849. That's the accumulated total for all people of all years who have gone missing and stayed that way. [Edit: Worse than I thought. They have a number for the number they consider to have been involuntary (i.e., everyone else is considered to be exactly where they wanted to be) and that number is an order of magnitude lower still: 4,883 for all legal minors for 2013.]

    Now. Ok. Even one is too many. We all agree about that... but you're taking every time someone skips school or an excitable mother or stern dad calls the police because someone misses curfew (≠"go missing") and presenting it as an actual missing person. Now that I've bothered to find actual RS showing it to be misleading by an order of magnitude and a decade out of date, original hook and ALT2 completely struck.

    You seem well-meaning enough. It's a well-meaning group and page. All the same, tone down the phrasing to something less inflammatory, non-misleading, and actually supported by your sources: at minimum, you need "reported missing" instead of "go ~" and better still if you note that (thanks to the good work of places like ICMEC) thousands more missing persons were discovered than went missing in 2013, the last year for which figures are available, or that media continue to widely report an overstated figure over a decade out of date because it's two orders of magnitude higher than the actual number of involuntary disappearances (which is important to note and understand, even if it's only tangentially related to this particular page). — LlywelynII 11:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sincere heart-felt apologies about my unintentional misspelling of your name. Please AGF, and don't take it as rude.
As to the hook -- the WSJ is an RS for what it states. And the DOJ for what it states (I believe the focus on the DOJ source was introduced by reviewing editor Cas Liber here ... who above seems not to have a problem with the US figure).
RSs are considered RSs, per wp:rs, because of their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Presumably (but let me know if I am wrong), you would not have a problem with stating something along the lines of (you may have tweaks) ... "that ICMEC tries to help find missing children, an estimated millions of whom reportedly disappear each year worldwide, with about 800,000 [or hundreds of thousands?] reported missing in the US alone?"
RSs tend to report facts. Not "vouch ... for ... methodology or ... accuracy" of studies. Per WP:NEWSORG, "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." Full stop. Once we are looking at a statement of fact by an RS, there is no need to interrogate on what basis the statement is made by the RS -- we are instead relying on the reputation of the RS for fact-checking. (When the WSJ says person x was born on date z, we reflect it ... we don't say "I don't know the WSJ's source for that, so I either won't report it or I will say "the WSJ claims, without revealing its source, that person x was born on date z'.") And there is zero evidence that the Wall Street Journal reported on the basis of a press release. Or that otherwise, its RS-level reputation for fact-checking does not apply here.
And since as you say the Department of Justice isn't "fringe", and its number is consistent with the Wall Street Journal number in its 2012 article, that number doesn't seem problematic.
In support of relying on the Wall Street Journal over any primary sources, WP:RS states: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." And further: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.".
In any event, language such as the above (or you may have suggestions) can clarify this further, by the addition of words such as "estimated" and "about" and "reportedly".
Perhaps you have further suggestions as to how to -- within the 200-character limit -- make this work? I think your thoughtful crafting would be helpful. And it may prove helpful if you would take a step back and re-consider the above links to: a) WP's reliance on secondary sources over primary sources, and b) WP's reliance on RSs' reputations for fact-checking rather than seeking the details of what that fact-checking entailed (or engaging in OR guess-work as to the source of the RS's reported numbers). This may well lead us to together being able to craft something.
And, alternatively, I gather you also don't have any problems with the other editor's ALT3. Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Just so. It doesn't state the figure is true. It states that other people report that number. Hence, its continued inability to serve as a RS for this hook.
    The thing in your second line has some grammar problems and is still repeating a decades-old number instead of the one I just gave you for last calendar year, but yes: it is a different thing to say it is so and to say that some people report it. You could tidy that up and it would be fine. Just like the WSJ.
    There is prima facie evidence the WSJ just passed on a press release number. It's precisely what they did. They just checked to see that someone else said it and left it at that. You can, too. Just stop phrasing it as if it were actually a true or accurate number. It isn't. By hundreds of thousands or by two orders of magnitude, depending on what you're talking about.
    The DOJ number isn't fringe. It is a RS for actual information, unlike the WSJ article. It's also two decades out of date and not talking about what your hook is talking about. So... still issues.
    I do appreciate your politeness, but I do rather have my dander up over your continuing insistence on misleading hooks, on a bad source (not the WSJ in general, just that article for that information), and on using data from a study a decade and a half ago when I just gave you one from last year. You can work it out for yourself. Better still, though, if you weren't just trying to make someone happy and saw the actual problem. You could make something factually accurate by including some "reported"... but it would still be misleading because more than all of those were found last year. Absolutely, we shouldn't be passing on wrong information; even when you rephrase it, though, I wish we weren't passing along misleading information either. (If you still don't see the many, many ways in which the figure is misleading... well... I already wrote that.)
    ALT3 has some grammar problems. Right now it says the ICMEC is running the government of 22 countries... — LlywelynII 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Cutting to the chase, listening to your concerns, would you find the below wording which seeks to address and allay your concerns acceptable for that ALT and/or ALT3?
For the first hook, would something along the lines of the following work for you?: [ALT4:] "... that ICMEC tries to help find missing children—with over 600,000 reported missing last year in the US alone and reportedly millions who disappear each year worldwide?
For ALT3 (which seems less hooky to me), would you find it agreeable as an alternative if it were to say: [ALT5:] "... that the ICMEC and NCMEC's Global Missing Children’s Network assists investigations across 22 participating countries"?
Tweaks are welcome to either or both hooks. With your help, I would hope we can move this forward to your satisfaction.
I would be happy to have further discussion later on whether there is in fact prima facie evidence as to how the WSJ came to its number -- which would arguably be an exercise on both our parts in OR -- but I don't think I should bog down this discussion with that here. So -- I'm not ignoring your comment; just pending a response to a later time and forum, if that's OK. Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Those are much better, yes.
    @OH: Grammar edit.
    Comment: The current phrasing suggests I can call them if I have a missing person. This is unclear to me from the present article. Do they themselves help people find their missing children? or do they improve and coordinate the law enforcement efforts and "raise awareness"?
    Comment: I think millions internationally is a valid idea but the article currently provides no reliable sourcing for it. This Irish Mirror article has it but is a WP:PUS tabloid that provides no source for the information beyond the advocacy group they're reporting on; we shouldn't use it except in precisely the context it shows up here: as evidence that it's a "widely reported" number and not necessarily a true one. The WP:SELFSOURCE to the ICMEC's page should just be removed or shunted to the #External_links section: they may qualify as experts but here they provide no sourcing or justification (even internally) for that figure and so it's no good. This link seems dead. NISMART doesn't provide the figure at all. The BBC article and the WSJ article are RS but, again, only for the fact that others are using those numbers and not necessarily that they are accurate. Related pages like Child abduction only give the (decades-old) US figure so I can't point you in the right direction, sorry.
    Comment: Look at the lead sentence of the Child abduction article for a good example of presenting the figures fairly. Big numbers are reported; almost all are recovered; that still leaves much too many (but not hundreds of thousands).
    Comment: The BBC and WSJ articles are RS that the number is being used. The present phrasing of the hook could allow that but grammar of the current sentence they're in means they're only sourcing the 800,000 figure.
    Comment: Given that there's no source for the actual number itself, though, it may be better to just stick with the US figure.
    Comment: I think just using the acronym may be more hooky. Do you think it's off-putting?
    Comment: It's fine if you'd like another reviewer. I can be overly blunt. But if I'm hanging around through the process, do go use and cite the current FBI figures for the US number. 800,000 is a historic one and should not be presented as a current one.

    @ALT3: Grammar and content edit. It's not "a" global network: it's a proper name. Per the article, doesn't seem to be exclusively theirs.
    Comment: I don't see where they're said to head the GMCN. This site says they "lead.. a... movement" and also that the GMCN is a "core program" of theirs, but it's not the same thing. The article says the GMCN was founded by the ICMEC and NCMEC together: is the NCMEC no longer involved? The site shows ICMEC're involved and a lady using one of their email addresses is the contact person, but do they head it? The "GMCN home" webpage is being run from the National Criminal Justice Training Center's site, not the ICMEC's. — LlywelynII 03:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Taking into consideration your comments, for the first hook, would something along the lines of the following work for you?: [ALT6:] "... that ICMEC tries to help find missing children—with over 600,000 reported missing last year in the US alone, and [estimates that] reportedly millions [who] disappear each year worldwide?"
That modifies the phrase "millions" with the word "reportedly". If need be, we can include the phrase "estimates that". This is WSJ and BBC-supported, as you indicate.
If need be, we could as you say stick with the US figure. But given the above edit, perhaps that is not necessary.
I agree that the acronym ICMEC has the advantage of brevity. At the same time, it communicates less as to the nature of the organization than does the full name. At the end of the day, though, if the 200-character limit is an issue, ICMEC seems IMHO the better choice.
As to how ICMEC tries to help, the article indicates that it consists of a number of things, such as improving/training and coordinating law enforcement efforts and "raising awareness", the global missing children’s network, performing related research, assisting the UN with regard to child abduction, etc. I think the article states how it helps, and the hook doesn't need to encumber itself with the detail.
As to your suggestion of this being open to review by another reviewer, I'm happy for you and anyone else to look at it. But I think that we are very close on wording at this point. Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Just mentioned it since I know my objections are the exact same as those raised by at least three editors above and will be shared by any subsequent ones. You seemed to be phrasing things towards me personally, but we're all just trying to create accurate and helpful material. My only improvement has been getting you to see where they were coming from. Still not all the way there, though:
    Comment: I guess you missed it. There was (old) sourcing for the 800,000 figure. The problem was that you were—accidentally, no doubt—phrasing the hook in a way that it said something the figure didn't mean. (Something patently unbelievable, hence the objections.) Changing the phrasing can fix that, although now that we've found the real number you should go ahead and include it, removing the old number from the lead. The old number should only be left in the body if you make very clear that it is an historic figure and not a current one. (Still hasn't happened, but I get it that we're focusing on the hook at the moment.)

    The problem with the millions figure isn't that it's unbelievable. It is, easily. The problem is that there is utterly no sourcing for that fact in the present article, as above. It will remain something that should not be in the hook—or the article—until it's actually sourced to someone (other than the Daily Mail & the website of the group itself) who claims it is true and not (BBC/WSJ) merely mentioning that others claim it is. Kindly go find out where the number came from or let's just drop it (here and from the article) until there's a RS supporting it. An ouroboros of people just reporting that other people say it isn't good enough.
    Comment: I take it from your reply that, except in unusual cases, they do not help families directly. The tries in all these hooks is unnecessary—it does in fact do something. But the something it's doing seems not to be directly helping but something else. Better to nix the try to and change help find to something more accurate: ...helps those finding..., ...coordinates efforts to..., ...supports the efforts..., &c.
    Comment: Of course there's always the factual hooks like ALT1. I certainly clicked through to find out who she was and if they found her. But they hadn't... Do they have any agency success stories?
    Comment: In the lack of an individual success story, you can show how good LE is in general on these cases: you can lose the international figure and use the extra space to show how police found more people in calendar 2013 than went missing. Some people went missing, yes, but we're working on the backlog and that's good to know! ...except I'm not sure ICMEC is involved in domestic efforts: seems like more like the National CMEC's area. But you'd just need one successful US case ICMEC assisted with in order to be able to tie them in with the US's success rate. — LlywelynII 23:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As to the above, yes, I'm focusing on the hook for now. As to the phrasing, I'm trying to find phrasing that you (since you are the one writing at the moment; but of course this applies to anyone else as well) find acceptable.
As to the millions figure, we are emphatically not stating that "millions are missing". We are stating precisely what the WSJ ("It is estimated that some 8 million children go missing around the world each year..." ) and BBC News clearly state. If they don't state "x is true", but state rather than "x is estimated", that in fact is RS support for the statement "x is estimated" (or, as in Alt 6, "... [estimates that] reportedly millions ... disappear each year worldwide?")
Per wp:rs, we accept RSs' statements that "it is estimated" as RS support for that statement.
Note as well, that the RSs indicated "8" million. We've however rounded it down to "millions," which could be as low as 2 million of course. There's no reason -- even if one engages in OR, which is of course unacceptable -- to doubt that there are at least 2 million in that category.
As to your questions as to whether the organizations helps families directly, I see no mention of that in any of the sources other than the little reflected in the article. What I have seen along those lines in RSs is what is for the most part reflected in the article. Same goes for whether there are success stories -- whatever I saw in RSs that was notable is for the most part reflected in the article already.
As to the term "tries" in the hook; that was an effort to not presume that they are successful. I'm fine with dropping it, if you think it better. And of your helpful suggestions, I think "... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children ... " works best. I think that's an excellent change, actually. Hookier, and barely longer. Thanks for the suggestion.
Would ask you to reconsider the above. This of course has been slow going, and the string is long, but it appears that we are inching closer to a viable hook. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I already considered the above, as above. The WSJ and BBC are both sources that the number is claimed but (a) grammatically they're not currently being cited within the article (see above) and (b) you need to go find something other than the Irish Mail that says it's actually true, not just a daisy chain of people reporting other people that other people report it. First, it's needful and, second, any AGF goodwill went out the window when they report that number immediately next to a figure a decade and a half out of date. I'm sure the study this came from is out there somewhere and the article has been very dramatically increased from what it was before you got there, so we appreciate your work and can wait if you're busy now. Otherwise, feel free to remove the so-far unVERIFIABLE number and emend or change the hook. (Personally, I'd rather see the fact backed up since the US figures are more part of the NCMEC's bailiwick.) — LlywelynII 00:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The WSJ article is recent. So is the BBC article. They are both RSs. Published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The fact that the figure mentioned is consistent with the figure a decade and a half prior does not ipso facto indicate that they were relying on an old figure. It seems to be an impossibility to you that the figure can still be the same, in two different years. That's raw editor supposition. Editor OR. You're simply making up the "fact" that the figure must be based on an old number, because it matches the old number. There is nothing to support that but your supposition. And it flies in the face of what our RS guideline states. Supplanting the RS's reputation, with your unsubstantiated personal editor guess-work.
As the RS guideline emphatically states: "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." It is simply your Wikipedian opinion, based on your personal interpretation of primary source material, that the two RSs are not stating accurate information.
Since the WSJ is an RS, we as as a result can rely on it to report facts accurately. Same with the BBC. And as indicated above -- we reflect what RSs state without them laying out the sources they use -- otherwise we would never state "x was born on date y," if the Wall Street Journal didn't in turn say how they know it ... which of course is not how WP works.
I guess we could also look at using the UK's 140,000 figure, along with the US's, though from what I see that may be a low estimate. That could read: [ALT7:] "... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children—with over 600,000 reported missing last year in the US alone, and over 100,000 reported missing in the UK annually?"
I think we have the beginning of the hook squared away ("... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children—with ... ").Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg It's been almost two weeks now, beyond the lengthy discussion above.
  1. The nominator continues to misread his sources, in order to support a claim they do not in fact support;
  2. the nominator continues to disparage editors and their concerns, rather than treat them with good faith and address those concerns with better sources;
  3. the nominator continues to do so despite having been shown newer data that shows his original sources are no longer accurate (if they ever were);
  4. that newer data has not been incorporated into the article, which continues to cite a US figure two decades out of date;
  5. the article continues not to caveat that number with the known facts that the vast majority of reported cases are voluntary, that 97+% of cases each year are closed within the year, that the last year we have data on (2013) over 100% of cases were closed... omissions that verge on violations of WP:LIE;
  6. the article concerns a US-based agency for dealing with international disappearances (domestic cases are dealt with by a separate group), so the domestic US figure is almost aside the point for the hook or the article;
  7. the article continues to provide no source whatsoever for its international figure, which the nominator has ignored for months;
  8. the article contains no possible source for the international figure, as it is only asserted by a WP:PUS Irish tabloid and a website self-published by the agency in question, which the nominator has ignored for months; and
  9. the nominator has responded to repeated calls to go find such a citation with further stonewalling and tendentious misread policy, rather than... going and finding an actual source.
Normally, I'd say we could always go with a blander hook and just get this done, but the stonewalling and seemingly WP:AGF-proof way concerns are being dealt with make me question the bias and reliability of the entire article. Should we just close this? — LlywelynII 01:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder if perhaps Llywelyn's earlier suggestion that he was open to another editor looking at this afresh may be helpful. Especially as I don't read the above the same way he does. I've tried to address Llywelyn's concerns. I've sought to be civil.
As to his above concern # 4, I'm a bit perplexed by his upset -- as I had thought it was fine to wait until we sorted the hook out here first before one of us addressed it. But I have now added the FBI material that he indicated he wanted added to the article. In looking at the stats, it is clear that the FBI criteria for a missing child are narrower than the NISMART criteria -- thus, comparing the numbers is an apples-to-oranges comparison. That said, I would suggest -- in a revision that encompasses both definitional approaches -- that ALT7 be replaced by ALT8, reading:

[ALT8:] "... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children—with hundreds of thousands reported missing last year in the US alone, and over 100,000 reported missing in the UK annually?"

As to his concern # 6 -- the US and the UK are two significant countries within the countries covered by ICMEC; there are of course other countries, but these two cover a significant percent of the population of the countries in the ICMEC network.
As to his concerns # 7 and 8, I've left word at an appropriate wp talk page, and perhaps some expert in the RS area can provide helpful advice here.
But I don't think that is even necessary--if we are looking at ALT8. It doesn't speak to the broad international number at all. :::::Nor does ALT5, an update of the suggestion by editor TonyTheTiger. Which I also think is acceptable -- though less hooky than ALT7 (which is clearly sourced to RSs), also doesn't mention the broad international number. Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break

(facepalm) how did we get to this? Ok - we need footnotes next to numbers in article explaining how numbers are calculated. We need to get the info as clear as possible. It's late here and I am tired. I've read through this twice now and my brain hurts. Will try when less fatigued. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a rule here at DYK to the effect that when the nom discussion grows bigger than the article and all its sources combioned, the nom is withdrawn. EEng (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That would just open the system to being abused by people who don't like a subject. Filibustering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Good thing you pointed that out, because I was seriously gonna suggest someone write a "DYK nom length limiter" script, which would add up the length of the article and all its sources. Then a bot would come by and... EEng (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • FFS. The number has been both cited and attributed in text; that's about as "Are we sure about this?" as we can get with an RS. If that number is the controversial aspect of this hook, then leave it out. Go with ALT8 or ALT5. Personally, I'm concerned about the citation bombing going on in the article. Most of these claims don't need 5 or 6 references. — Crisco 1492 (talk0) 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
ALT5 I'd be OK with. All the stats such as that in ALT8 are misleading unless the hook can somehow squeeze in an explanation of phrases like "reported missing" -- no matter what the country. Otherwise we're just repeating hype. Beyond that (and I haven't looked at the article recently) to be NPOV the article itself needs to clearly explain all such figures with similar definitions. EEng (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco -- tx; I also think ALT8 and ALT5 are appropriate (and agree with your first point as well, as to the number having been both cited and attributed in text, which is as you say is what we look for with an RS). Stats in ALT8 are amply discussed in the article text, which editors reading the hook and clicking find themselves at, and are government agency stats (actually, a very watered-down, under-stated version of them). Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 2 March 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)
BlueMoonset, before I start a review on this, please clarify: is Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto V (re-release) considered a valid review for QPQ?Redtigerxyz Talk 13:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, I'd say that Jason's final post on January 2 covered the remaining issues needed in the review, so I think it was ultimately valid and counts as a full QPQ. Thanks for asking. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Symbol possible vote.svg Jason Rees, Article created by Jason Rees on December 5, 2014. 4194 characters. Issues:

  • the hook needs to be formatted properly. Only Eric Nigel needs to be bolded. The fact is also not stated in the article
  • Close paraphrasing:
    • Article: "After assessing the damage and finding thousands of people homeless, the Government of Vanuatu established a disaster relief and reconstruction fund
    • Source [8]: "After assessing the damage on the major islands in the northern part of Vanuatu and finding thousands homeless, the GOV established a disaster relief and reconstruction fund, and coordinated international donations"
    • Article: "These needs included a 6 month food-rationing project for 10,000 households, a rehabilitation program for 10,000 shelters and improved internalcommunication including between the FMS in Nadi and the capital city Suva."
    • Source [9]: "These included a six-month food-rationing project for 10,000 households to be supplied, in part, by a faster-yielding vegetable production program mounted by the Directorate of Agriculture: arehabilitation program for approximately 10,000 shelter units: and improved internal communications, particularly between the national center for weather monitoring and forecasting in Nadi and the capital city of Suva."

Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Redtigerxyz, I don't understand your first point. Eric should not be bolded, and isn't, because Nigel is the only article under consideration. Eric is only a regular link, which is allowed. (So far as I can tell, the hook is correctly formatted as is.) You are, of course, absolutely correct that the landfall of the two cyclones within a week of each other needs to be in the Nigel article, and also inline cited there. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, copy-paste typos. "Severe Tropical" should not be bolded IMO. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think ive got to try and expand the impact section today if i can - but i kinda disagree with Severe Tropical not being bolded since thats the "official name" of the system.Jason Rees (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Redtigerxyz, I disagree with you. "Cyclone Nigel" is certainly valid, but so is "Tropical Cyclone Nigel" (the storm's full name once it reached hurricane strength) and "Severe Tropical Cyclone Nigel" (its full name when it was strongest). There's no reason the latter should not be be used in bold, and I think frankly that it would look and read quite oddly to have "Severe Tropical" unlinked and unbolded, since it is part of the storm's full name during that period. (Similarly, we've seen use of "Super Typhoon" in bolded links in the past.) Regarding the close paraphrasing, the second instance is actually text copied from Cyclone Eric, so it originated there. (It's still not allowed, of course, whatever its origin.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be a pain BlueMoonSet but in this region a Tropical Cyclone is a Tropical Storm and a Severe Tropical Cyclone is a hurricane. Anyway can we please have some common sense and remember that quite a bit of Nigel's aftermath in Fiji, will be the same as Eric and thus a few lines from Eric may appear in Nigel and visa versa for obvious reasons. As i said earlier my intention is to expand Nigel out a bit today so that i can take care of any close paraphrasing issues.Jason Rees (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Jason Rees, sorry I got the categories wrong in terms of equivalent strength, though I think the rest stands. I'm looking forward to your edits. Incidentally, for Wikipedia, copying from other Wikipedia articles is fine so long as it is specifically acknowledged in the edit summary, or noted on the article's talk page (see WP:CWW). However, when such copying occurs in articles nominated for DYK, the copied material is subject to 5x expansion (the article must be at least five times as long as the copied material)—your article easily meets that test, but it does apply. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Last night i discovered a new source that allows me to get the timeframe between the two systems to about 36 hours as a result i would suggest that becomes the blurb rather than a week.Jason Rees (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jason Rees, please write up a new ALT hook with your preferred wording of the above. Once we have that, we can call for a reviewer to check it against the article and new sourcing. (We always leave old hooks in place so that people can follow the progression of the review.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok its been written.Jason Rees (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including of Alt1 hook, and that close paraphrasing has been addressed. I've struck the original hook since Alt1 is the same except for a shortened (and therefore more hooky) time frame. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 24 February 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)
  • Sorry, but I do not see how we can run this on the front page. I see that Psychonaut is willing to accept the hook based on the Mansfield News citation, but the sentence in the article that is supposedly verified is hardly the same as the hook, if only because "accepted as a white hunter" isn't the same as "accepted into a club which ordinarily accepted only white hunters". But beyond that, an article that relies for so much of its sourcing on a forum thread from a website, that can't be right. Plus, I have my doubts about the reliability of the other sources, and I do not believe this will withstand AfD. White Hunters is the best of the sources, and it has a couple of sentences on our subject, and two footnotes. Encounters With Lions by Trophy Room Books--well, we can't search the books, but the publisher strikes me as a fancy vanity press.

    Then there's the writing. The lead is obviously not neutral, not encyclopedic: I am pretty sure we shouldn't start an article with "Mohamed Iqbal Mauladad was known to all as "Bali"." The sentence "he was entitled as the white hunter" makes no sense, and what the "Shaw and Hunter trophy" is is anyone's guess--it's not verified or even mentioned in the article. I just corrected a page number/added a citation for the shooting brake. Then there's the man's death: supposedly that entire section was (also) sourced to White Hunters, but that cannot be, since all that the book says is "...Iqbal was gored by a buffalo at Kibwezi, Kenya, in 1974 and died from complications shortly afterward". Surely it is striking that this book, likely the best and most reliable of them all, has a different date: 1974. It is certain that the article was written or co-written by someone who knew the man well and thus the 1970 date must be correct--that means that the book must be wrong, and that thus the other information in there is questionable as well. No, this cannot land on the front page, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'll have another go at getting this back on track as the principal editor (user:Mauladad) is a young Asian lady and supporting her efforts is a way of addressing multiple diversity gaps. She is still quite inexperienced though and so her update to the lead was not quite in our house style. I noticed this at the time but didn't like to rush in to revert immediately as this seemed too contrary to WP:OWN and WP:BITE. Now, about the year of death. I noticed the discrepancy in the sources in earlier work. The best source for this seemed to be the Kenya Gazette which posted a legal notice about his estate. It's not unusual for there to be some discrepancies in the sources about key dates. For example, when Lynsey de Paul died, we had a fine old time sorting out her birth date because most of the mainstream media got this wrong and even the official records got her name wrong too. And even Jimmy Wales famously disputes the date of his own birthday! Such minutiae bedevil most articles but, at DYK, we are dealing with new work and the focus of our fact-checking should be the hook. I'm thinking that newspaper archives will give us more good evidence so I'll try those. In the meantime, for interest, folks might like to view this newsreel which I just found, which shows the subject competing in the East African Safari rally. The subject's placing is given in the commentary, about 1 minute in, and he appears on camera twice. Andrew D. (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not think that the reliability of sourcing and the notability of subjects are minutia, but your mileage varies, of course. I am not aware that we accept legal notices--it strikes me as primary, and that the Kenya Gazette publishes it doesn't mean the Kenya Gazette exercises editorial control over it; really, they may have posted it, but that's truly in a newspaper's role as a medium, an in-between, which simply prints what it is offered. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on December 22[edit]

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)
    • @Nikkimaria: Sentence rewritten. Is there anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes. Another example is "When he entered Yonsei University, he learned about the Gwangju Uprising and started to study about democracy, becoming a democratic movement activist." (Source: "When he entered Yonsei University, he learned about the May 18th Gwangju Democratic Uprising. And then he started to study about democracy and became a democratic movement activist"). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Copypaste removed. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Another example is "he was fatally wounded by a tear gas grenade, triggering further mobilization" vs "Lee Han Yeol was fatally wounded by a tear gas grenade during a demonstration, triggering further mobilization". At this point I would suggest that you go through the entire article and compare it to its sources to ensure that all problems are caught, rather than simply fixing examples one by one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Piotrus, it's been over a week, and this article has been rife with close paraphrasing and copy/paste. The nomination needs your attention in order to continue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
            • @BlueMoonset, Nikkimaria: I rewrote this para. Is there anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
              • Have you gone through the entire article, as I suggested above? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
                • Yes. I don't think there's a single unchanged sentence remaining from the version student submitted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • Symbol delete vote.svg On the basis of that assurance I checked the article again, but found issues with the first source I looked at: "The victims of the Uprising had been buried in dishonor (...) for 17 years" vs "The victims of the May 18 Democratic Uprising in 1980 had been buried in dishonour for 17 years". In light of this I think it's time to close. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
                    • This is nothing but nitpicking. A few sentences are allowed to have a similar structure, otherwise every sentence one would write would be a copyvio of something, at this day and age. Nobody ever is going to sue Wikipedia for half a sentence (or even two or three). Even we wouldn't tag this article with any warning template for a single sentence that's close to the source. I appreciate your discoveries of serious copyvio and copypaste issues, and those have been addressed here. What remains is inconsequential. I think it's time to promote this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
                      • Our standard is not whether someone is going to sue us - this happens rarely for even the most egregious problems - but whether the article is properly paraphrased. I would hope not to be finding further examples so long after the issue was first raised, particularly given that you said there wasn't "a single unchanged sentence remaining". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Now that all the changes have been made, let's get a reviewer in here to check the revised article and make sure everything's okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 20 February 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)
  • Symbol question.svg The fact doesn't appear to be supported by either reference [4] or [5]. In general, the references don't seem to always go with the facts they appear after. This need fixed up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (next day) and long enough (3.8k chars). Reiterating ThaddeusB's partial review, the article patently fails WP:V. Ref #4 is a Korean press release on his appearance on a Japanese TV special commemorating the 2011 earthquake. Ref #5 is a short gossip column about how he reads newspapers in print rather than online. Neither mention his age or his first album. If either the nominator or the creator are unable to correct this then I'm inclined to suggest a withdrawal. Fuebaey (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2015 (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)
  • Symbol question.svg The article had the 5x expansion as described above, there are no obvious copyvios reported through Earwig's script and the hook's figure is in several sources. However it says there are around 40,000 unidentified decedents, which may be slightly more or slightly less. I have changed the hook accordingly. Just waiting on the QPQ, then this can go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue has been discussed on the talk page of the article - feel free to add your stance. --GouramiWatcher(?) 19:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The QPQ has been attended to. The WP:WORLDVIEW discussion appears to have taken place, but nothing has been changed in the article as a result, which seems to leave the nomination in limbo. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I just tweaked the article to include more representation of other countries. As far as the term "decedent" being used primarily in the United States, I did not change the word to avoid conflicting with the article title. With the discussion on the talk page regarding this issue, there have not been any ideas to substitute another formal-appearing term.--GouramiWatcher(?) 16:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, the edits to the Causes section have unfortunately rendered the sentence about thousands not only incomprehensible in the way it tries to compare the United States and the world, which removes support for the hook, but you've also eliminated the forty thousand number from the article that's absolutely required for the hook. (There's also the "Tthousand" typo.) The article needs more work if you want to retain the above hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I've changed the article and also added an alternative hook, which I hope would be acceptable. I'd prefer it over the current one, as it does represent a worldwide view. Thanks! ALT 1: ... that there are thousands of unidentified decedents worldwide? --GouramiWatcher(?) 19:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, you've taken three U.S.-only sources, and applied them to your changed Causes section's first sentence, which now reads: Tens of thousands of individuals present the problem of being an unidentified decedent worldwide, with "worldwide" the significant addition. The problem is that these sources have no information about the extent of the problem worldwide, just that the U.S. is estimated at approximately 40,000: worldwide it could be hundreds of thousands, not tens. I also think the phrase "individuals present the problem" is odd in this context: they're not individuals at this point since they're dead, and they don't present the problem, they are the problem. So this is an issue not only with the article but with its sourcing, which also means the hook isn't adequately sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I just restored the part on the US information back to it's original text. The information for the rest of the world was a lot harder to find, so I ended up creating a different sentence. I guess we could probably go back to the original hook. Thanks --GouramiWatcher(?) 01:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, you did create a different sentence, but it doesn't really hold up. After you've mentioned 40,000, I was expecting "significant" to refer to at least thousands, but the total at the source is only a couple of hundred, and none of the countries listed have even 100. That's orders of magnitude different, and given my recollection of population, fewer than one person in a million for those countries. I think we're going to need a new reviewer in here, because I don't feel comfortable with the direction this nomination has taken. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to take a fresh look at the nomination, hooks, and the worldwide view. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

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)
@Gourami Watcher: It's been a month since the last comment but a QPQ has not been supplied. Are you still working on this nomination? Fuebaey (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: I've had a discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Hieromonk Mardarije but haven't gotten a response about the QPQ. --GouramiWatcher(?) 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, Fuebaey, it seems to me that the QPQ has been supplied, in this case the one for the Hegumen Mardarije article in the double nomination cited above. (The Hieromonk Mardarije article's QPQ is being used on another nomination.) There are a few things to wrap up there, but that's up to the nominator, so this should not be further delayed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, now that notability, image, and QPQ issues have been addressed. (Original review did not mention a check for close paraphrasing, so this needs to be included in the new review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 22 February 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)
Symbol delete vote.svg It's been more than three weeks since this was last reviewed, but no improvements have been made to the article. Unfortunately, the nominator has not logged since the above comment. Fuebaey (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I do apologize for this; I just started a new job. I'm on the page right now making improvements to it. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just an update: I attributed a sentence that was lacking who said it, and I clarified another sentence that was questioned so that it would be clearer on the article's context. I am working on my QPQ and possibly a second hook. Happy Chinese New Year, everyone! :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian 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:
  • ALT1: ... that British billionaires, the Livingstone brothers, are so publicity-shy that they have 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)
  • ALT2 ... that the Livingstone brothers have been called "arguably the lowest-profile billionaire siblings in London"?
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including the various hooks (which have been renumbered for clarity, and edited slightly to meet DYK standards). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This article is quite problematic, I'm afraid. I've browsed the sources and am concerned about the following issues:
  1. The article is biographical and so "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."
  2. Presenting the two brothers together is not our normal practise and may cause trouble. For example, the first hook suggested is about the wife of one of the brothers. Suppose the other brother does not wish to be associated with his sister-in-law?
  3. The primary source is the Forbes entry in their list of billionaires. There's a big photograph there but that's a picture of a different Ian Livingstone. I am acquainted with that other Livingstone who has complained to me about the quality of his own article on Wikipedia. We should not be linking to an incorrect source which depicts him as a billionaire as he's not quite that rich, I suppose, and there's some real-world hazard because such figures attract thieves, kidnappers, &c. I am going to remove this source from the article now because it is not high-quality.
  4. The other sources in the article and elsewhere emphasize the low-profile behaviour of the subjects and use words such as "opaque" and "secret" to describe their finances. Putting a valuation on their wealth is therefore difficult. Problems include the exact ownership structure - how is the wealth split between them; are there other shareholders; is there a family trust; &c? Their property business is highly leveraged and so there are large debts to go with their large assets. The Standard says, for example, "The vast sprawling group has assets of more than £4 billion but after borrowings are knocked off, net assets are a more modest but still substantial £800 million." Notice that 800 million is not quite a billion, especially if you have to split it two ways.
I'm thinking that the best way forward would be to have two separate stubs about each brother and that their property dealings are best covered in articles such as London & Regional Properties. There doesn't seem to be enough material about each brother, when considered as an individual, to warrant a DYK and so I fear that we won't be able to proceed.
Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I've started Richard Livingstone (businessman) and Ian Livingstone (property developer). The May 2014 Sunday Times Rich List gives them a joint new worth of £2.6 billion. The content is available in the Estates Gazette. So, they do qualify as billionaires, even if one splits their wealth. Having said that, I do accept your concerns about this as a suitable DYK subject. I will probably focus more on Ian, as the original hook is rather more about him. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Edwardx: Can I ask how you'd like to proceed with this nomination? Fuebaey (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: As I've now created separate articles, and the article about Ian has been expanded, I think it best if the hook is just about him. I am of course open to other hook ideas, but how about:
  • ALT3 ... that publicity-shy billionaire Ian Livingstone is married to a journalist for the celebrity gossip magazine OK!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardx (talkcontribs) 12:12, 11 February 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review request. Fixing nom template and striking first three hooks since article is now about one person. Fuebaey (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)






Articles created/expanded on January 4[edit]

Hieromonk Mardarije, Hegumen Mardarije

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

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article seems to be neutral and adequately sourced, but all of them are in a foreign language in books, which makes it somewhat difficult to check for paraphrasing. Would someone familiar with these books be able to check? I believe that the hook appears to be catchy and long enough and is sourced in the article. The article is new enough to match the nomination date. length wise, it is also long enough. I would definitely say that the same eval would be appropriate for the article for Hegumen Mardarije.--GouramiWatcher(?) 02:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. If the problem was hook, I provided two quotes and translation (diff and diff). If you are concerned about foreign language sources, that is usually resolved by assuming good faith, if I am not wrong. I sincerely believe there is no close paraphrasing issue here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, I need to point out that two articles have been nominated here, Hieromonk Mardarije and Hegumen Mardarije, and you need to specifically review each of them. (You also get two DYK credits for reviewing two articles, which is what you currently need.) Other checks you have not mentioned include newness (nominated within seven days of creation/expansion) and length (minimum of 1500 prose characters each); you can use WP:DYKcheck on the articles to determine both. There's also an unusual situation here, in that the same material (the Misidentification sections) is used in both articles. As the articles were created within minutes of each other, and both had Misidentification sections, the thing to do is exclude the 456 prose characters from one of the article's prose character counts. (Normally, it would require a 5x expansion if copied from one to another, meaning a minimum of 2280 prose characters including the 456, but it seems to be a common creation so I don't think this would make sense.) As Antidiskriminator points out, offline sources are usually accepted AGF (there's a specific icon for approving a hook based on such offline sources); you can check the quotes in the references using Google translate to get a basic idea of what is being said in the source. I do think the articles could both use a copyedit; the sentences are sometimes unclear. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I tweeked my eval to add the rest of the requirements. I also stated that the exact same evaluation could go with the second article that was nominated, which I'm hoping could also work. Thanks, and let me know if I'm still not doing it right! :) --GouramiWatcher(?) 03:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Gourami Watcher, I apologize for not getting here sooner. This looks very close, enough for QPQ credit and at this point I think your own nominations can continue. The things I wonder about, that perhaps Antidiskriminator can help clear up, is why "Hieromonk" and "Heguman" are capitalized in the hook above when they are typically in lowercase in their respective articles, and why the "Hegumen Mardarije" article says "Hegumen Mardarije or Hieromonk Mardarije" as its opening, directly below its "Not to be confused with Hieromonk Mardarije." admonishment. Instead of "or" in that opening line, something like "sometimes called Hieromonk Mardarije" (or "also" instead of "sometimes") would be less confusing to the reader. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing to this issues.
    1. Hegumen or Hieromonk: When I began preparing drafts of this two articles I noticed that some sources refer to both of them as hieromonks, so I added the hieromonk title to hegumen Mardarije also. When I later discovered that many sources mistakenly identify hegumen and hieromonk Mardarije I failed to correct the text of the article about hegumen (which I did now).
    2. "Capitalized H or not?" I left capitalized H because some sources use capitalized letter H as part of their names (i.e. this source for Hieromonk/Jeromonah Mardarije and this source for Hegumen Mardarije) and because it is also capitalized in the names of the articles. Your point is correct, H should be capitalized at both hook and text of the respective articles, or none of them. I am uncertain about what to do because English is not my native language, but I guess any solution would be ok. Thanks for your review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)



Ideasthesia

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))
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed; previous reviewers have not returned. Note that original review did not address the "within policy" issues of neutrality and close paraphrasing, and should be checked as part of the DYK review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC).


Kidnapping and murder of Moisés Sánchez Cerezo

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

  • Comment: He was kidnapped on January 2, but his corpse wasn't found until the 24th. However, sources do say he was killed the same day he was kidnapped. ComputerJA () 22:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The article seems neutral and I detected no copyright or close paraphrasing issues. However, I don't think this hook will do because the article and source both state he was the first journalist to be kidnapped in 2015 but the date of his death is unclear, and other journalists were murdered in early January. How about:
  • ALT1 ... that Mexican journalist Moisés Sánchez Cerezo was abducted from his house on January 2, 2015, and his mutilated body found three weeks later? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for your review. Like I mentioned above, the investigation concluded that he was killed the same day he was kidnapped. When that was confirmed, this source backed that up. I don't see a problem with the original hook. He got a lot of press coverage because he was the first journalist kidnapped/killed in 2015. ComputerJA () 19:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK has been much criticised recently for claiming things are the "first" when they are only believed to be the first. In this instance, your article states that former Televisa reporter Jazmín Martínez Sánchez was killed on January 4th. You can't know for sure which of these deaths occurred first. I cannot approve the hook as it is, but if you want to add a qualifier such as "is believed to be the first", I might. Sorry to be difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I'm not here to argue whether it's true that he was killed the same day he was kidnapped. That is what the investigation concluded and what reliable sources say. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for more information. ComputerJA () 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The relevant source states "Rodríguez [a suspect] alleges that the journalist was killed on the day he was abducted" and the headline states "Mexico: 2015’s first murder of journalist highlights need for effective investigations to combat impunity". I will bow out here as I am not happy to approve the hook based on this single source (#32). Someone else may be happy to approve it, or you could choose a different hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Source #84 says that investigators concluded that he was killed the same day he was kidnapped. New review needed. ComputerJA () 15:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)









Articles created/expanded on January 5[edit]

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:
    [ALT2:] ... that after the communists took power in China, the Kuomintang Third and Fifth Armies became drug smugglers in Burma 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)
  • Comment: If it helps, the pun is obvious to Americans but then confusing. It does mean "intoxicated" but either from alcohol or marijuana, not opium. In any case, the link to a war article swallows up most of the punniness. It's not really worth keeping unless the mules come back in. Of course, that is a pun too. See: drug mule.
    Comment: Don't call them the Kuomintang. I know it's where our article is but "Chinese Nationalists" or the "KMT" are both much better known.
    ALT3: ... that both Burmese mules and Chinese Nationalists got bombed by Laos during the 1967 Opium War?
    ALT4: ... that Burmese mules and Chinese Nationalists got bombed during the 1967 Opium War?
    Comment: I struck it for you, but what was "factually incorrect" about ALT2? That they stopped? Because the article as it stands mostly backs up Q's point. — LlywelynII 05:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The detail that makes ALT2 incorrect is that the KMT became drug smugglers in Burma, not in Laos.
  • Please allow a bit of time for reconsideration here, while I deal with the issue of the hook. Also, please note that Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "bombed" as "...having the central nervous system so affected by alcoholic liquor, a narcotic drug, etc., as to have lost control..."Georgejdorner (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ah. Just so. Unstruck and emended. Also:
    ALT5: ... that, after the Communists took power in China, the Nationalist 3rd and 5th Armies took over the Burmese drug trade until their defeat in the 1967 Opium War?
    Comment: .shrug. I can't help it if Webster's slang is so bad they can't tell the difference between THC-"narcotic drug" and opiod-narcotic drug, but that's aside the point of it mostly not working because of the pun being swallowed by the war angle. The mules are cute, though. — LlywelynII 01:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Time to sort out the hooks.
  • The original and ALT1 are true and properly cited.
  • ALT2 is still factually incorrect; the KMT did not quit drug smuggling after their defeat. Also, there is no confirming cite at the end of a sentence for the hook.
  • ALT3 and ALT4 are correct, and properly cited.
  • ALT5 is incorrect for the same reasons as ALT2.
  • For ALT6, I propose: ... that during the 1967 Opium War, both traffickers and their mules got indiscriminately bombed? Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Not saying we have to go with ALT5, but you're misreading it if you think it's incorrect. The fact that the "war" ended their control of the Burmese trade is not only correct but cited. Emended ALT6.
Um, a more careful re-reading of ALT5 convinces me you are indeed correct.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg That said, I was just commenting. Is Qwertyus going to come back and finish an actual review? or do you need someone new to come in? — LlywelynII 01:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
And that is indeed a good question. I think I shall ping him/her.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to keep you waiting. Please get someone else to do a review, I won't be able to do so in time. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hooks are set; struck ALT2 hook noted as incorrect (ALT5 appears okay after all). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 25 February 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)









Articles created/expanded on January 10[edit]

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)
  • Mandarax, Muboshgu, how about replacing "not choosing between" with "continuing to play both" to break the impasse:
  • That works for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Sounds good chaps. The article has not been edited since my last review, when it was fine. The hook is factual, interesting and referenced inline, and the QPQ is done. Good work all round. Harrias talk 16:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I seem to be the only holdout. Since everyone else agrees, maybe I'm being too picky, so go with it if you want. But it still seems misleading to me. He cost himself the money by honoring his commitment to play basketball instead of quitting it to go play baseball for the Orioles. I would prefer to chop it as:
  • ALT3: ... that Pat Connaughton "cost himself some money" by continuing to play basketball?
  • Or, if you'd rather keep both sports in the hook, tack "rather than baseball" onto the end. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
But "rather than baseball" is misleading, because he was still playing both sports, and without baseball you're losing a primary bit of information, since it's the baseball signing money that was presumably reduced. Strictly speaking, it's also that he wanted to finish college and get his degree first, along with his commitment to finishing out basketball, that cost him the money. I'm fine with the ALT2 hook as is. (I did strike ALT1, given the objections.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The article does not make it clear that he was playing pro baseball while he was playing basketball during his senior year. It looked to me that the article was saying that the Orioles let him play out his basketball season before starting to play baseball for them. After reading your note, I consulted one of the sources, which cleared it up. Maybe it's obvious for people who know anything about sports contracts, but I'm not one of those people. Now that I know that, I think a more interesting hook would be:
Honestly I'm not sure for the reason for that confusion, since the article does explicitly state that the Orioles let him keep playing basketball. The last sentence of the "Collegiate career" section says "He agreed to terms with the Orioles, receiving a signing bonus of over $400,000,[1] with the Orioles permitting Connaughton to play basketball for the Irish in his senior year.[10][11]" – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you misread what I wrote. I know that the article explicitly states that the Orioles let him keep playing basketball, and I said that above. What I didn't see was that he was playing pro baseball at the same time. I thought the bonus was to lock him in to a contract to play baseball after he finished playing basketball. What I failed to notice before was the end of the "Professional baseball career" section which says "he left the IronBirds to return to the Fighting Irish basketball team". I still don't like ALT2 because: 1) Although it doesn't say it explicitly, I took it to mean that he played both at the same time, which he apparently didn't. 2) It says that continuing to play both baseball and basketball is what "cost himself some money", but it was only the playing basketball part that cost him money; playing baseball is what made him money. But everything can be interpreted other ways, so if everyone still wants to use ALT2, go for it. (Although I still like ALT3 best, because it's unambiguously true, but with an element of mystery.) MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have a couple of issues. First, we will never know what bonus he might have gotten, which is why the source says "may have lost money"; the hook passes it off as a definitive. Second, it sounds somewhat negative, as if he did not know what he was doing. Per WP:DYK, we should avoid "hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." (bolding is from the source) Moreover, the ESPN source states "Connaughton had another reason to return to South Bend -- an academic one."[10]. If the hook is to remain in the area, it needs to emphasize that he chose to forego potential money, not that he unwittingly lost a sure thing.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair points. How's this? Feel free to make any changes to it, as I haven't had my morning coffee yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:04, 20 February 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?
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article has survived an AfD nomination by User:Hirolovesswords. Needs another editor to complete this DYK review. -Arb. (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on January 11[edit]

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)
  • Personally, I prefer the original hook, the hook is about the book, and Hayakawa's status as first non-White US movie star is a more notable fact. --Soman (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, @Skr15081997:, ALT1 is AGF and cited inline. @Soman:, I just felt that the overlong book title followed by an overlong quote isn't so hooky; now that we've expanded the queues to 8 hooks per set, it will really get lost. Another alternative is to keep the piped link and write the quote the way you did, although the article doesn't say anything about him being the "first" non-white US movie star:
  • ALT2: ... that the biography of Sessue Hayakawa (pictured) documents the career of the only non-white Hollywood film star of the 1910s and 1920s? Yoninah (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with ALT2 as well. --Soman (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Great. Since I can't approve my own hook, could you? Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg for ALT2 --Soman (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I pulled this from prep because this extraordinary claim (ALT2) needs an extraordinary source. The article cites to a book review of a scholarly book, not to the book itself. Book reviews need to be used with caution (WP:RS) and, in fact, when you look at the book itself it says "there were some popular non-Caucasian actors and actresses in the silent era, but they had mostly supporting roles...". This may or may not be the same as saying they weren't "stars", but in any event this seems to be a restatement in the book review not (apparently) found in the book -- at least not with that wording. We'll either need to restate the hook somehow or find a different hook. Too bad since it's an interesting topic. EEng (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly harder to find fault with, but can't something more like the "only non-white" hook be found? Like I said, it's an interesting topic. EEng (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Adding icon to prevent this from showing up as verified. Also noting that ALT1 was struck above as "isn't so hooky", so a new hook should be found; I've just struck ALT2 because it was pulled from prep as unacceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check the above two ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg IMO, the ALT hooks are too bland. How about:
  • ALT5: ... that a 2007 biography of Hollywood silent film star Sessue Hayakawa (pictured) explains why the Japanese-American actor was usually cast as a villain?
  • The article also needs copyediting. I tried to smooth out the Summary section, but didn't do the rest. Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that's an interesting hook (I copyedited slightly -- hope you don't mind). EEng (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Perhaps he got grilled on the witness stand?





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 interpreted 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)
  • Thanks! but I need a third one for the third article? Ok, will get on that. — LlywelynII 02:31, 31 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)
  • Nah, I won't. — LlywelynII 02:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg All three articles are short of the minimum length requirement. Haiyong and Qilong (the list of villages does not count) are about 1,250 characters each, and Yonglongsha less than 1,100. They all need some expansion to qualify. All three articles also need extra sources. Haiyong and Qilong are mostly unsourced. Yonglongsha is better. The hook is good and interesting. -Zanhe (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Gnome-face-embarrassed.svg You are quite right. Oops.
  • Haiyong expanded from Chinese wiki, Hudong Baike, and one of its local gov't sites.
  • Qilong expanded from Chinese wiki, Hudong Baike, and one of its local gov't sites.
  • Yonglongsha expanded from fellow articles and Baidu Baike. — LlywelynII 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok: third review done. Lemme know if the other concerns have been addressed. — LlywelynII 05:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for expanding the articles and adding the QPQ. They are now long enough. However, they still have the same referencing issues as Chongming Island. Several sections are still unsourced, and some sources used (e.g. Baike.com) are user-generated and not reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


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?
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; struck original hook due to objections noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)









Articles created/expanded on January 16[edit]

The Battle of Palmdale

F-89D Firing Mighty Mouse Rockets.

Created by Samf4u (talk). Self nominated at 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svgThe article was actually moved from Sam4u's sandbox to article space on Jan. 24, but it wasn't nominated here until Feb. 14; I'm assuming this is beyond the acceptable date limit. If not, this is the creator/nominator's first DYK, so no QPQ would be needed. The article is long enough, at 7622 B (1275 words) "readable prose size" on the day it was moved. It is neutral and cites sources. However, some of the sources are questionable and there is considerable evidence of plagiarism or very close paraphrasing that would need to be resolved before this could be acceptable as a DYK. Some examples:
  • Article: According to one witness, a rocket skipped through Placerita Canyon, leaving a string of fires near Oak of the Golden Dream Park. Placerita Canyon was the location of the Indian Oil Co., and several of its oil sumps were ignited and 100 acres of brush burned. The blazes in the canyon also got within 100 yards of the Bermite Powder Co. explosives plant.
  • Source: According to one witness, one rocket skipped through Placerita Canyon, leaving a string of fires near Oak of the Golden Dream Park," Merlin said. Placerita Canyon also was the location of the Indian Oil Co., and several of its oil sumps were ignited. The blazes in the canyon also at one point threatened to reach the Bermite Powder Co. explosives plant, he said.
  • Article: Larry Kempton was driving west on Palmdale Boulevard with his mother in the passenger seat when a rocket exploded on the street in front of him. Fragments shredded his left front tire and put 17 holes in his radiator, hood, windshield and firewall.
  • Source: Kempton, with his mother Bernice in the passenger seat, was driving west on Palmdale Boulevard just west of 10th Street West when a rocket exploded on the street in front of his car, the newspaper reported. Fragments from the explosion shredded Kempton’s left front tire and put 17 holes in his radiator, hood and windshield.

MeegsC (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)




Mary Birdsall House

Mary Birdsall House

Created by InTheAM (talk). Self nominated at 22:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Both hooks are properly sourced, so either would be fine. The article is new enough and has enough text. I see no copyright issues with text or photo; it's written from a NPOV. You might want to think about adding the thumbnail photo of the house. However, I can't seem to find information about the college's updating of the home's bedrooms and baths at the link. We hope (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Have removed the sentence about the college's remodeling as I've searched for other sources and didn't find any. The article seems fine without the sentence and is now ready to go! We hope (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This needs to be reviewed again for possible close paraphrasing with the NRHP site; it seems like phrases are being copied and then switched around to not follow the same order that's in the source. Also, the hooks are a little weak. Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I agree that some of the phrasing is a bit close and could be reworded, or perhaps supplemented with an additional source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)





2002 ICC Champions Trophy

Created/expanded by Sahara4u (talk). Self nominated at 01:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

  • @Vigyani: hook changed. Expanded the article, now this is more than fivefold even if you exclude the "Knockout Matches" section! --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that previous issues have been worked on. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on January 17[edit]

Eli Sagan

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self nominated at 16:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Article is long enough (4216 B), and started 5 days before being nominated.
  • It's neutral and cites sources; I hope you don't mind that I've done a bit of copy-editing.
  • Checking now for copyright problems...
  • Can you please add the URL for the COA website? I can't check that source.
  • With 377 DYK credits(!!) to date, Alansohn needs to do a QPQ

MeegsC (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been two weeks, and Alansohn has not responded to two posts to his talk page. Pinging there one last time; it would be a shame if this nomination had to be closed due to a failure to post here. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Still waiting for URL for COA website, which can't be checked for copyright violations... MeegsC (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@MeegsC: I think the site can be found here but access seems to be subscription based. Fuebaey (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It is subscription based. I was able to access through my library account. Alansohn (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)



Goliathus orientalis

5x expanded by Hectonichus (talk). Nominated by Rcej (talk) at 15:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Rcej, note that there is no longer a QPQ exemption for non-self-noms. Reviews are required for any nominator with five or more DYK credits. See WP:QPQ. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 03:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok...will do two reviews ASAP! :) -- Rcej (Robert)talk 15:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Done! -- Rcej (Robert)talk 04:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Hectonichus; Rcej Goliathus regius: Article became a non-redirect on January 17, 2015 by Hectonichus; 1730 B; no copyvio. Hook is not cited by inline citation.
Goliathus orientalis: Corrected link in hook. Article became a non-redirect on January 16, 2015 by Hectonichus. no copyvio. 1756 B. Hook is not cited by inline citation.--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article Goliathus orientalis is acceptable for DYK, being new enough and long enough, neutral and without copyvios. I found the fact in the hook by going to page 3 of the source. Goliathus regius is not acceptable for DYK because it is largely identical to the other article and if you discounted the duplicated material it would be much too short. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How about this:

the beetle Goliathus orientalis

  • ALT1: ... that in captivity, the larvae of the beetle Goliathus orientalis (pictured) can be fed on commercial dog or cat food? -- Rcej (Robert)talk 06:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The single article now nominated is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook has an inline citation (page 3 of the source) and the image is appropriately licensed. The article is neutral and I detected no close paraphrasing. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)







List of accolades received by The Last of Us

Created by Rhain1999 (talk). Self nominated at 02:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (16 Jan) and long enough (~3k chars). QPQ done. There doesn't seem to be any copyvio and the lead (list summary) reads neutral enough. However, there are a few contradictions. First off, the hook is a bit misleading - no mention of 230+ award wins in article. The fact "most-awarded video game in history" is sourced to this site, which in turn cites this blog. The number is for a specific award: Game of the Year, and neither figures match (231 in the first, 249 in the second, 89 total wins in the article infobox). The accolade section doesn't even mention half of them. I'd suggest changing the hook or the article for consistency, to reflect whichever preference. Also, if I'm counting correctly, there are more wins in the accolade section than there are in the infobox. Can this be fixed as well? Fuebaey (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I understand your concerns. I believe the reason that the DualShockers post is different to the blog post is because the latter has been updated since the former was posted. Also, the reason that the article and infobox only lists 89 total wins is because a lot of the sites that gave the game awards are deemed unreliable (but awards are awards, and I believe they can still add to the "230+" statistic). I've just gone ahead and corrected the counting problem in the infobox (I have to do it manually, so I was expecting some errors). Let me know exactly what else you'd like me to do. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, could you change the hook then? When I first read the hook I clicked on the link to see which 230+ awards it received, but was disappointed when there was no mention of this in the article. I think most readers would expect at least that when clicking on the hook. Fuebaey (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative for the hook; with an article like this, there's not many options. Could the hook possibly be changed to "winning over 100 awards"? An alternative would be to try and list the 230+ awards, but I'm not sure how others would look upon that, considering some of the awards come from unreliable sources. Let me know. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If you don't think that the sources are reliable maybe go for a different subset? How about mentioning that it took the most BAFTA game awards in 2014. The Academy is known more for their film and television awards so a video game winning five could be intriguing. Or possibly an American award, since it's an American production, but I'm not sure what would be considered the most prestigious video game award there. Fuebaey (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning the BAFTA wins is a good idea; unfortunately, the five wins isn't record-breaking (many games have previously won six), but it's still very impressive. How about:
That's more difficult to put into a sentence than I imagined it would be, and the words "win..." and "awards" is repeated very closely, so I understand if you'd like to change it. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've changed the last two to avoid repetition and striked the original hook on the above discussion. Copyedited a bit. I haven't been through all 111 sources so, I hope you don't mind but, I'd like to ask another reviewer to once over this in case I've missed something. Good luck with the nom though. Fuebaey (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for all of your feedback! -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 06:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on January 18[edit]

List of works by Georgette Heyer, The Black Moth

Created by Ruby2010 (talk). Self nominated at 00:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Comment: After nominating the list, I decided to make this a double nomination with The Black Moth (which I expanded 5x). Hopefully I didn't screw anything up when editing the template!
  • I've fixed the error in the template. I should also note that The Black Moth is indeed 5x expanded, despite what DYKcheck says: it started at 571 prose characters, where it's been since September 2013. That requires a minimum of 2855 prose characters post-expansion, and it now has more than enough at 3035. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I will review these two, as I'm familiar with Heyer's work. It might take a little while, as I have several comments on a quick scan of The Black Moth. A quick first comment: is it possible to rephrase the hook so as to make it clear this is a list, not the biographical article on Heyer (which is an FA, as I recall)? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Ok, doing The Black Moth first. The length & expansion (5.3x) are indeed ok, the timeframe is fine and the article is not a stub. The hook is short enough and adequately hooky; the "fact" was well known to me, and is also supported by the ODNB. The content is reasonably neutral though I'm a bit worried by the weight put on the comments by Mari Ness at Tor.com -- I'm not sure how reliable this site is as a source for historical romance, and there's the implied assertion (otherwise unreferenced) that the book was cowritten by Heyer's father which needs a proper reliable reference. I feel the expansion, though within the rules, is a bit perfunctory, probably because it was, as you state, an afterthought; I have some suggestions for additional material that could readily be added and will put them on the talk page. There are some problems with the existing material which badly needs editing; in particular the summary needs rewriting and referencing, and there are problems with the character list. I am also worried by a couple of instances of something that is on the edge of close paraphrasing; I will put the specific instances on the talk page. The QPQ remains to be done. I'll come back later with comments on the list of works. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Re List of works by Georgette Heyer: The text portion is long enough; date moved from userspace is ok; well referenced; does not appear to be reusing content from Georgette Heyer. The text appears of adequate standard for DYK in terms of neutrality/balance/completeness. There is one slight problem with the paraphrasing: "saturnine male lead", which is quotation from Hodge (and is it even true of Black Moth? It's the anti-hero who is archetypally saturnine), but in view of the problems I detected in the other article I have checked sources available online reasonably carefully without finding any other issues. The Featured List review might conceivably lead to stability problems, and in particular it would be wise to resolve whether the historical romance table is to be split by period or not before running. Otherwise this article seems fine. QPQ also needed for this one. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hodge uses the phrase in The Private World of Georgette Heyer regarding The Black Moth: "Here, already, are the saturnine male lead" (p. 17); I'd advise quoting the words. (If I recall correctly, "saturnine" is a descriptor used by Heyer herself in her novels.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Turning it into a quotation would be a good idea; "saturnine" is such a pungent word it inevitably leads to the feel of too-close-paraphrasing, even on its own. Re Black Moth (if you happen to know it), the question is who is the male lead -- Carstares or Belmanoir? Unfortunately my copy of Hodge is 500 miles away in storage so I can't check who she's referring to! It probably doesn't matter in the list article if it were turned into a direct quotation. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hodge doesn't say who she thinks it is. Sorry. She's talking about elements in the first book that would recur in later ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for weighing in here! I plan to work on these two articles some more this weekend. (EA, you are correct that my expansion of The Black Moth was more of an afterthought - I'm aware it needs a lot more work! My first focus is the list article, but I'll jump into Moth with any remaining time. RL is just keeping me busy lately). Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just adding note that I plan to work on Moth this weekend, with possible spillover during week. Will report back here once I think it's worth looking at again. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 15:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Ruby2010, just a reminder that since the hook includes two articles, you'll need to provide two QPQs, the first of which I see you've just posted above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)




Advayataraka Upanishad

Created by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Aroused has an, um, odd connotation here, but I lack the knowledge to fix it. EEng (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • EEng, arouse as used in the sentence means: "To cause (someone/thing) to be active, attentive, or excited". It does not only mean sexual arousal. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, but I wonder whether achieved, initiated, summoned, invoked, awakened might draw fewer snickers. EEng (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
EEng, the term "arouse" is used in this context generally. [11] --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I defer to your judgment. EEng (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)








Articles created/expanded on January 19[edit]

Premio Lo Nuestro 2014, Premio Lo Nuestro 2015

Enrique Iglesias, facing front, holding a microphone

Created by Jaespinoza (talk). Self nominated at 21:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC).



Vincenzo Pipino

Fonteghetto della farina, Canaletto, circa 1730.jpg

Madonna col bambino, Palazzo Ducale, Venezia.jpg

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 18:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

  • ALT1: ... that as a child, art thief Vincenzo Pipino dusted coffins and dressed corpses at a mortuary?
  • ALT2: ... that art thief Vincenzo Pipino would seek cashmere clothing while conducting his art thefts?
  • ALT3: ... that most thefts by art thief Vincenzo Pipino were conducted during the day because of his fear of the dark?
  • ALT4: ... that the cover of Vincenzo Pipino's autobiography depicts the Canaletto painting Il fonteghetto della farina (pictured), one of his most famous thefts?
  • ALT5: ... that Vincenzo Pipino's theft of Madonna col bambino (pictured), symbolic of "the power of the Venetian state", is the only theft from the Doge's Palace?
  • ALT6: ... that art thief Vincenzo Pipino has been likened to the fictional gentleman thief Arsène Lupin?
  • Comment: please note that images are associated to specific hooks. Mindmatrix 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I struck the original hook, as ALT5 is similar but better. Mindmatrix 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on January 20[edit]

The Indestructibles

  • ... that two stars known as The Indestructibles circling the North Pole permanently marked heaven as a destination for Ancient Egyptian pharaohs from 4,500 years ago?

5x expanded by Manytexts (talk) and Rich Farmbrough (talk). Self nominated at 10:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The prior revision is 783 prose bytes. The current revision is 2,276 bytes. The fivefold is supposed to be 3,915 bytes. I'll give you at least a week to expand the article. George Ho (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Alas, the current revision is 3,974 bytes, passing the fivefold minimum requirement. I was gonna use a red icon until I see some uncited statements. Can anyone here resolve this? George Ho (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Issues have been resolved, the sourcing and the expansion. Needs re-review. George Ho (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Skanda Upanishad

Harihara

Moved to mainspace by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Redtigerxyz (talk) at 07:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg At 130 characters the hook is short enough. The hook appears in the article and is sourced. The image is properly licensed public domain. The article was moved into mainspace the day of nomination. The article is long enough, is neutral, and is within policy. QPQ was done. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on January 21[edit]

Parliament in the Making

  • Reviewed: work stealing
  • Comment: This is related to a set of historical anniversary dates and so might be run on one of them such as 15 June.

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk), Whizz40 (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 13:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and the sources I checked didn't raise any close paraphrasing issues. The hook refers to the BBC's season of programmes called "Taking Liberties" about the influence of Magna Carta and the state of democracy in the UK. Would ALT1 be better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that the BBC is 'taking liberties' with democracy?
Defer to Andrew, but sounds like a good hook, and one that would get people interested. Whizz40 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Balwant Singh Nandgarh

5x expanded by Vigyani (talk). Self nominated at 10:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC).









Articles created/expanded on January 22[edit]

Gabriel Langfeldt

5x expanded by Iselilja (talk). Self nominated at 18:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well-referenced. As most sources are foreign-language or offline, unable to check thoroughly for close paraphrasing. The first part of the hook needs an inline cite in the article right after the sentence in question. The second part of the hook is AGF and cited inline. QPQ done. I tweaked the hook slightly, and also added User:Oceanh to the creation credits, as he started the article and made more contributions during the expansion. The only lingering issue is a missing word at the end of the 5th paragraph under Psychiatric evaluation of Knut Hamsun. Otherwise, an interesting read. Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)











Articles created/expanded on January 23[edit]

Old Wounds (album)

Created by Fezmar9 (talk). Nominated by Malconfort (talk) at 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I was going to give this a tick, but on further thoughts I think it is too short. The prose text is 2174 B, but the Reception section almost entirely consists of lengthy quotes, which must reduce it to something like 1000 B of original text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)



Pond Creek (Little Wapwallopen Creek)

  • ... that Pond Creek is in Pennsylvania, just south of the Wyoming mountains?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 18:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

  • I don't see where the cited source says that Long Pond Creek and Pond Creek are the same. EEng (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no Long Pond Creek, as one can see from lists like this. As for why it's the name of some other stream, it meets the description of Pond Creek precisely (for one thing, it flows through Long Pond, which is a GNIS official variant for Lily Lake, which Pond Creek flows through). And then there's the undeniable similarity of the names. Seems pretty simple to me and I like the quirkiness, but I suspect you'll want another hook. Let me see if I can slap together something else...
I blindly added a zillion links to ALT1, and not surprisingly a few have come back red. Since you're the expert I'll leave those to you ;). I think you're almost certainly right about (Long) Pond Creek but it's (borderline, admittedly) SYNTH. When you think about it, it wouldn't be impossible that there are two different creeks, Pond Creek and Long Pond Creek, very near each other but with different names to distinguish them. Unlikely, but let's stay away from it. EEng (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right about [Long] Pond Creek and I'm fine with leaving out ALT0. I delinked Wisconsinan Till and boulder alluvium since it says somewhere in the DYK rules that redlinks can't be in a hook. Maybe someone should create a couple of articles on these.... --Jakob (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook has been established. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)



Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Plant

Generator at Plant 1, Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Plant

Created by NortyNort (talk). Self nominated at 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC).






Articles created/expanded on January 24[edit]

Premio Lo Nuestro 1995, Premio Lo Nuestro 1994

Created by Jaespinoza (talk). Self nominated at 20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Dates and lengths good for both articles. Hook fact confirmed and length is acceptable. No prose or plagiarism problems spotted, but was limited in what I could check by sources located behind paywalls and by limitations of online translation of Spanish language sources. Only thing needed is the QPQ reviews. --Allen3 talk 16:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)



Bill Barwick

  • ... that singer-songwriter Bill Barwick provided the voice for a life-sized animatronic Buffalo head in the Denver International Airport?

Created by Lou Sander (talk). Nominated by Noah Salzman (talk) at 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC).




Miroslav Jakšić

5x expanded by Temple of the Mousy (talk). Self nominated at 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Tom Hallifax

Created by Llwygy and moved to mainspace by The Herald (talk) (From AFC). Self nominated at 14:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC).


Sirima-Shastri Pact

Created by AntanO (talk). Self nominated at 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough and long enough, QPQ is fine. However, the article is written in quite clumsy English throughout. I don't even understand the final part of the hook suggested above. I think the article would need copyediting, and a new hook proposing. Relentlessly (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Relentlessly, As per your suggestion, copy editing and new hook proposing are made. --AntonTalk 18:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Anton, but I still didn't understand large parts of the article. I've gone through it fairly comprehensively now and rephrased, expanded and added citations as appropriate. But I've probably done too much editing to do the DYK review now. Relentlessly (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Thanks for the expansion work. Shall we go for the ALT1? --AntonTalk 04:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@AntanO: I'm very happy with it, but I don't want to approve the nomination because I've now done quite a lot of work to the article. Relentlessly (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's wait for someone. --AntonTalk 11:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed, since previous reviewer has made significant edits to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 25[edit]

Marsh Creek State Park (California)

Created by Bruin2 (talk). Self nominated at 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC).


Waldorf–Astoria (New York, 1893)

Painting of the Waldorf-Astoria, circa 1915

Improved to Good Article status by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk), We hope (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 20:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC).




Battle of Vientiane

  • ... that although the Battle of Vientiane resulted in about 600 civilian deaths, the losing military force escaped intact?
  • Reviewed: Minorities (Lebanon)
  • Comment: When two armies fire machine guns and cannons at one another from opposite sides of city blocks, only the civilians get hurt. If not for the suffering of the bystanders and the devastation to the city, the Battle of Vientiane would have seemed comic opera. However, the winner of the battle conquered the Kingdom of Laos, and the loser fled with his forces to form yet another side in the ongoing Laotian Civil War. There was still a decade and a half of fighting left.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Dates and lengths all good. Article is based upon offline sources, so AGF of hook fact. Offline sources also prevent checks for plagiarism and related concerns. QPQ review performed. --Allen3 talk 18:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Double direct election

  • ... that in a double direct election, individuals are elected as representatives for two tiers of government in one election?

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 17:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I'm a bit confused. Is this where a person is elected with a dual mandate in one direct election? Would either of the following (hypothetically) apply:
  • Scenario 1: a person wins a direct election for two posts (local and parliamentary) and serves as a local councillor and a Member of Parliament
  • Scenario 2: a person wins two direct elections (local and parliamentary) held at the same time and serves as a local councillor and a Member of Parliament
Fuebaey (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No, neither of those apply. This is specifically about an individual who, as a result of a single election, ends up serving on council of two lower-level jurisdictions - their municipal council, and the council for the region of which that municipality is part (at least in Canada; I haven't had much luck finding info for China). If an individual runs for office provincially or federally, they must take a leave of absence from current municipal offices, and resign from those lower-level councils if elected to provincial or federal office. Mindmatrix 14:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)



Sri Lankan Constitution of 1972

5x expanded by AntanO (talk). Self nominated at 09:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC).

Christmas Special (Uncle Grandpa)

Created by 23W (talk). Self nominated at 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on January 26[edit]

Ploughing in the Nivernais

Ploughing in the Nivernais

  • ALT1: ... that he ploughs the fields with untold sorrow (pictured)?

(source Drmies archive 78)

Created by Drmies (talk), Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) credited for the idea. Nominated by Hafspajen (talk) at 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

The painting was painted, oh really! A claim to be "teh best", - boring ;)
  • Minor tweaks, out of pure spite. BTW, it's a great novel-- "...vous n'avez donc pas devine que je vous aime?" Drmies (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am innocent. Contrary all claims. Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Drmies, see the edit to the page for the proper way to format foreign and alt names.
    Comment: That's a gorgeous painting. Thanks for showing it. At the same time, what's wrong with the second team? Did she f*ck them up on purpose to keep the patches of color in the right place? or just do them too quickly/badly? — LlywelynII 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, just drawing it to your attention in case you were doing several of these and didn't mind reducing the work for the people who come after. Regardless, thanks for the improvement. — LlywelynII 05:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)



Alan Carvalho

Alan in 2010

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Royroydeb (talk). Self nominated at 10:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

  • This is not eligible for the 2x unsourced BLP exception (the article had plenty of references prior to expansion), but the exception is not needed here, since the regular 5x expansion requirement has been met. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article does meet the 5x prose expansion, but some of the early biographical material is unsourced, (I have added cn tags) and the first source given in the main text, footballzz, is from a user-compiled wiki. I'd also suggest that the hook is not in idomatic English, it should end "expressed his desire to play for the Austrian national football team". With just a few more sources (even if they are portuguese--which I can read) this should be ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – articles are titled as such due to the country being a noun and not an adjective in this situation. It is the team of Austria and not the Austrian team, indeed some of their players are not Austrian, nevertheless they do still represent Austria. I hope this clarifies. C679 21:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Even so, if we accept "Austria national football team" it is still a noun phrase, and being the only such team, needs the before the phrase. Also, if this is a proper name, why is it not capitalised? Even the translation of a proper name is capitalised in English. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Further: looking at our article, it is referred to as "The Austrian national football team" and the German-language article refers to it as Die österreichische Fußballnationalmannschaft which is literally "The Austrian [adj] Footballnationalteam" where "Austria (n.)" would be Österreich, capitalised, and österreichische is an adjective, uncapitalized. We either need to pipe to a proper translation of the German term, or simply use the German name outright. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, we don't. National football teams have uniform titles per long-standing consensus at WT:FOOTY. The earlier comment you made about American English is moot as well, since there is no connection with that version of the language here. Since the context is clearly football, suggest the best course of action is to pipe to Austria. C679 22:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Articles that appear under DYK and otherwise on the front page are supposed to avoid Engvar issues. In any case, I specify American, because I am American; I doubt the British, for example, don't say "the Austrian national football team" (regardless of capitalisation. The article itself uses "The" before the name of the team, and with that not fixed in the hook it is simply unacceptable. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1: * ... that Brazilian footballer Alan (pictured) expressed his desire to play for Austria?
Assuming @Royroydeb: has no objections, that althook elegantly sidesteps any problems I can see. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested to check whether sourcing is sufficiently reliable for his date of birth and early life, and to complete this review if possible. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)



Chief Kickingstallionsims

Created by Temple of the Mousy (talk). Nominated by Js20030 (talk) at 22:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC).



Elvis & Nixon

Elvis Presley meeting Richard Nixon on December 21, 1970.

Moved to mainspace by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self nominated at 17:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Readable prose size needs to be expanded.--malconfort (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to fixed this today. I almost forgot this. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Malconfort: Prose's expanded. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 08:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For me, it's ok. But I think you should take a look on the Elvis article and read the part he meets Nixon. Also, I think you can use the File:Elvis-nixon.jpg image in this DYK nom.--malconfort (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The plot needs to be expanded. Please reread my previous comment.--malconfort (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Prose is 2,104 characters and it's not a requirement to expand the plot. Plot is well/long enough for now, film is currently in-production not released. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 16:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The plot—which is really a (very) brief synopsis—is unsourced. Since this is not a published or released work that serves as its own "source", this section will require a reliable source for DYK. Indeed, the hook fact is not adequately supported in the article, and needs sourcing. Note also that a QPQ review will be required. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)




Cucumber (TV series), Banana (TV series), Tofu (TV series)

  • ALT1:... that Russell T Davies's new series Cucumber is a spiritual successor to his 1999–2000 series Queer as Folk?
  • ALT2:... that Banana is the first British television series to star a transgender actress in a transgender role?
  • ALT3:... that Tofu, an online documentary series about sex, contains dramatised vignettes that have been compared in tone to Black Mirror?
  • Reviewed:
  1. Eleanor Robinson
  2. Caroline Dawson
  3. Vainglory (video game)
  • Comment: Triple nomination for the triptych of shows created by Russell T Davies (which I took to FA, and then to the main page). I've credited Rob for providing some important details that could be built on. ALT1–3 provided in case the triple hook is objectionable.

Created by Sceptre (talk), Hellorobcurrie (talk). Nominated by Sceptre (talk) at 01:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough (23, 25, 26 Jan) and long enough (4.7k, 2.8k, 3k chars). There's some paraphrased overlap but there's enough alternative prose to push it over the 1.5k char length requirement. Sourced, neutral and no apparent copyvio. Can't verify ALT1 since I don't have access to the book sources - I'm concerned that it may not mention Cucumber (not its predecessor) since both were published before the series was picked up. Other hooks check out, but prefer the original hook because the series are related (via topic, creator and release date). I don't think the hook is otherwise objectionable - I'd take more offence if the hook contained blue humour than one that is "matter of fact". QPQs done. Fuebaey (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 27[edit]

National Replacement Character Set

Created/expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 10:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

  • The article is new, it has about 3,500 characters, which is above the 1,500 minimum. I'm a little worried about the sourcing, since the majority od the article is sourced with one reference. Also don't forget to check another DYK before this one goes.--Retrohead (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry Maury, but I'm reluctant to pass this nominee. Having the entire article sourced with one ref might contain copyright violations. I see the source is published by the Digital Equipment Corporation, the company that launched the character set, which is primary sourcing.--Retrohead (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ummm, there is more than one ref. One is entirely independent and clearly illustrates the use of the concept. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Expanding a bit:

  1. Using a single source certainly doesn't imply any sort of copyvio, any more than using multiple sources protect against it. Copyvio is copyvio, and has to be checked independently of the number of source of the cites. I assure you, there is no copyvio in this article, although you're free to check for yourself (all the refs are clickable).
  2. Primary sourcing isn't what you seem to suggest here. Primary sourcing, which redirs to OR, generally refers to cites that are published by non-reputable sources. I cannot cite a web page I put up on why UFOs are real, nor a book published at a mill. You can, for instance, use Romeo and Juliet as a reference for Romeo and Juliet.

...but... You can't use Romeo and Juliet to demonstrate NOTE for Romeo and Juliet. That requires a second source. I have one here so it doesn't apply, but more generally, what does one do? This system was used in millions of terminals around the world, it meets NOTE by that definition. But it doesn't demonstrate it. What does? Would ad advertisement in a magazine do it? That seems circular, right? Any comments?

My worry was whether the topic is well researched. Second thing are the capitalized words, that might appear mystic to the reader who's not into the subject. Can you respond to these before I pass the nom?--Retrohead (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I think I missed an edit in here, which capitalized terms? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 28[edit]

Margaret Kennedy (singer)

Created by Missvain (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Gerda, the hook is not true and is not supported by the ref. The Beggar's Opera premiered in 1728. Margaret Kennedy did not make her stage debut until 1775/1776 (almost 50 years later). She did appear in a famous production of it in 1777, for which Thomas Arne wrote the additional song, "A-Hunting We Will Go". I suggest the following accurate and referenced hook.

File:Margaret Farrell (Kennedy) as Macheath in The Beggar's Opera 1777.jpg

ALT1... that Margaret Kennedy (pictured as Captain Macheath) was the first person to perform Thomas Arne's song "A-Hunting We Will Go"?
Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I took too little time, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Fontinalis antipyretica

  • ... that common water moss grows underwater in fast-flowing streams and on the beds of lakes?

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for reviewing the article. I thought the images not sufficiently striking to use in the nomination. The second one is actually of two species of moss. With regard to the source you mention, I used it 3 times in the article.
  1. One was the description of the moss and uses some of the same words, but I do not believe there is any close paraphrasing.
  2. The source states "In northern North America extending southward to Pennsylvania in the east and Arizona in the west. Also in Europe, Asia, and Africa." and I state "Fontinalis antipyretica is found in North America as far south as Pennsylvania and Arizona, and also in Europe, Asia and parts of Africa." There aren't too many ways of giving these facts.
  3. The source states "Water moss is found attached to rocks or logs in swift flowing water, or floating loose or attached to substrate in still water. It is common in shaded sites and prefers slightly acidic water. It requires water below pH 8.4 where dissolved carbon dioxide is available." I state "It grows attached to submerged rocks in fast-flowing water. It also occurs attached to the substrate in lakes and as floating masses in still water, and may be cast up on beaches at the waterside. It thrives in shady positions and prefers acid water, a pH of around 8.4 being the maximum tolerated." I don't think these constitute close paraphrasing, or was there anything else? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)



1960 Laotian coups

  • ... that during the 1960 Laotian coups, the counter-coup within the counter-coup was defeated by the paratroopers' coup?
  • Reviewed: Musa McKim
  • Editorial Comment: On 9 August 1960, an idealistic young Lao paratroop captain successfully revolted against corruption in the Royal Lao Government. His reward was to be overthrown by a general backed by the Central Intelligence Agency in December. In the interim, some of the most convoluted and double-crossing politicking in history occurred. Not that the situation became any less complex in the aftermath. This bit of history seems to me to be, the Keystone Kops try to ape Machiavelli.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 05:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Note: A Barnstar will be awarded to anyone finding a cite that still needs multi-reffing.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A barnstar for what? Also, was one of the counter-coups actually a counter-counter-coup? EEng (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am offering a Barnstar to anyone who spots unnecessary duplication among the cites at the end of the article. I feel that during the task of condensing cites into multi-refs, I may have missed some.
  • And yes, one could also call the counter-coup to the counter-coup a counter-counter-coup headed by Kouprasith.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that during the 1960 Laotian coups, the counter-counter-coup to the counter-coup was defeated by the paratroopers' coup? EEng (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that during the 1960 Laotian coups, the anti-counter-coup to the counter-coup was defeated by the paratroopers' coup? EEng (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • By my parsing, any of the above hooks would be good. To recap, when Kouprasith grabbed the national radio station he denounced the coup leaders holding power; however, according to sources, he never announced anyone as taking charge from them, neither himself nor Phoumi. The latter must have thought Kouprasith was trying to usurp power, though. Phoumi subordinated Kouprasith to yet another officer in the attacking forces.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that during the 1960 Laotian coups, the anti-counter-coup to the counter-coup was defeated when the paratroopers' coup cooped up General Southone? EEng (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Clever, clever.
  • Emended above to reflect Asian naming custom of giving family name first, personal name afterwards.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Call for review. Please. And you just might have fun with this one.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)



Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

Improved to Good Article status by Cplakidas (talk). Self nominated at 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Ajith Kumar filmography

5x expanded by Vensatry (talk). Self nominated at 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC).


Articles created/expanded on January 29[edit]

Akshamalika Upanishad, Bhasmajabala Upanishad, Brihajjabala Upanishad, Kalagni Rudra Upanishad, Rudrakshajabala Upanishad

Shaiva sage

Moved to mainspace by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Redtigerxyz (talk) at 09:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on January 30[edit]

Florian Ștefănescu-Goangă

Created by Biruitorul (talk). Self nominated at 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Dates and lengths all good. Article is sources to offline references, so AGF of hook facts and article correctness. Offline sources also prevent checks for prose and plagiarism concerns. QPQ review completed. --Allen3 talk 13:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)




Master Apartments

5x expanded by Delabrede (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 16:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC).


16-inch gun M1895

  • ... that in 1915 the US finished a 16-inch artillery piece that weighed 284,000 pounds (129,000 kg) and could shoot a 2,400-pound (1,100 kg) shell 21 miles (34 km)?

Created by Esemono (talk). Self nominated at 06:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC).

  • ALT 1 ... that in 1915 the US finished a 16-inch artillery piece that weighed 284,000 pounds and could shoot a 2,400-pound shell 21 miles?
  • ALT 2 ... that in 1915 the US finished a 16-inch artillery piece that weighed 129,000 kg and could shoot a 1,100 kg shell 34 km?

Teenage Engineering

Created by Boomur (talk). Self nominated at 04:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC).

East Fork Harveys Creek

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 02:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC).

  • What's impaired? EEng (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Page 3 defines it if you're interested. --Jakob (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this qualifies as a technical term that should be explained to the reader in the article. You might use the definition here [12]. EEng (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Roaring Brook (Hunlock Creek)

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 01:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC).

  •  :REVIEW COMPLETED - The following has been checked in this review by Esemono
Green check.svg QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Interference Archive
Green check.svg Article created by Jakec on January 22, 2015 and has 3245 characters of readable prose
Green check.svg NPOV
Green check.svg Every paragraph sourced
Green check.svg Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio
Symbol question.svg Hook is interesting and short enough but it is sourced to a Map App that isn't even centered on Brooks Creek.
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Not sure what to do about the Reference. Do Map Apps count?-- Esemono (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Esemono: I use maps in all of my GAs (a few FAs seem to have them as well), so I don't doubt that they're good enough for DYK. It's impossible to center The National Map on a specific location with a URL, but the search function is helpful. Just type "Roaring Brook, PA" into the search bar select option A, and zoom in. --Jakob (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It's fine with me but I'm not the one you have to convince. @BlueMoonset: might be better able to clear this up -- Esemono (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on January 31[edit]

If 60's Was 90's

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 10:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Just stopped by because I wasn't aware that Hendrix had any children. His FA class article seems to think so too since it doesn't mention him nor any other of his alleged kids. I doubt that you'll be able to find a reliable source confirming that Hendrix is his father. Fuebaey (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only find one, this one, which confirms that Hendrix Jnr was declared his son in 1975.--Launchballer 11:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Granted this, this and this also suggests the same but a) legally only in Sweden b) without a paternity test. I'm still not sure stating 'his father' is enough without qualification. Fuebaey (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Geoffrey Kabat

  • ... that American epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat co-authored a 2003 study concluding that passive smoking was not associated with increased mortality?

Created by Everymorning (talk). Self nominated at 02:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg The article is plenty long enough, and the article was nominated within the required time after creation. The hook is interesting, and appropriately cited inline. Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Good to go. Harrias talk 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I pulled this from prep because Kabat's text, as quoted here [13] is
No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ... The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect....Given the limitations of the underlying data in this and other studies of environmental tobacco smoke and the small size of the risk, it seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
"Results do not support a causal relation [but] do not rule out a small effect" is quite different from the hook's "concluded that [there's no association]". BTW I think that any hook along these lines should mention the tobacco-industry sponsorship and the conflict some sources point out between this study and others on the subject. Come to think of it there might be a notability problem here too, but that's just a thought in passing. EEng (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Adding icon to cancel out previous tick, indicate that this does have issues, and prevent this from showing up as Verified. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I reiterate that the hook should mention the sponsorship by tobacco interests. EEng (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right, I must have missed that part, sorry. So I will propose another: ALT2: "that a 2003 study co-authored by Geoffrey Kabat and co-sponsored by the tobacco industry concluded that its results did not support a causal relation between passive smoking and mortality?" Everymorning talk 00:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Keepers of the Streak

Created by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 03:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length, referencing and QPQ check out. Spot checks show it copyvio free. However, the article makes no reference to Super Bowl XLIX. Miyagawa (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Feel free to cut it then and add something creative, as I am not too happy that there has been no press coverage after the initial debut. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to add something to the article to say that the four have attended the first fourty-eight Superbowls? I think that in itself would be hooky enough. Miyagawa (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)



CG 4

CG 4 by European Southern Observatory

  • Alt 1:... that God's hand (pictured) resembles a comet with a dusty mouth?

Created by The Herald (talk). Self nominated at 13:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The Herald, Article moved from User:The Herald/CG 4 on January 31, 2015. User:The Herald/Hall of Fame shows only 2 DYK (QPQ check showed zero), so no QPQ needed. 1691 characters. While I could verify the name "God's hand", I could not verify the "opaque" part. The online reference does not say so. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Added NOAO press release source verifying the opaque. However I am concerned that the article seems to paraphrase the source quite closely. Astro interest (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Rewritten.. - The Herald (here I am) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I have not checked for copyvio yet. But immediate concern: accuracy of hook. Only a part (head) of the nebula is opaque, not the entire nebula as suggested by the hook. Alternate hook is needed.Redtigerxyz Talk 15:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The Herald, the article has major close paraphasing and copy-paste. For example, Discovery is virtually copy paste from http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1503/. Also, ALT1, ALT2 is not mentioned in the article and are synthesis of different facts in the article, resulting in accuracy issues.Redtigerxyz Talk 10:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, I have rewritten the article and now Earwig Copyvio shows about 38.3%. Fine, I think. Alt.1 passes now per the latest version.  - The Herald (here I am) 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Structure section suffers from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (read "How to write acceptable content" in the link). Redtigerxyz Talk 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz: How now?  - The Herald (here I am) 16:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
"Discovery" is also copy-paste. The whole article needs to rewritten. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please check it now. The sections are rewritten and those proper nouns are left as it is.  - The Herald (here I am) 15:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The paraphrasing is still too close here: compare for example "stellar energy is gradually disintegrating the head of the globule, sweeping away its dust particles and scatter the light" with "Their energy is gradually destroying the dusty head of the globule by sweeping away tiny particles that scatter the starlight". Note also that the (insufficient) paraphrasing here has actually changed the meaning of the phrase, and that the source that is too close is not the one cited for that sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Will it be good to remove that superfluous statement "stellar energy is gradually disintegrating the head of the globule, sweeping away its dust particles and scatter the light"..Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


FourFiveSeconds

Created by Tomica (talk). Nominated by Calvin999 (talk) at 12:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Kanye West never sang before that? I think you should try something like: ... that Kanye West sings instead of raps on the "country-tinged" song "FourFiveSeconds"? It's just a suggestion.--malconfort (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, he is a rapper. And I don't see how your suggestion changes anything? It makes it longer and less concise, and adding the notion of country doesn't enhance it. It's not actually a country song, nor does it sound like (It's a matter of opinion). I'm sure he could rap on a country song if he liked, too.  — ₳aron 11:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, no problem. You're right. Apart from that, the article is new, long enough, and within policy. While the hook is cited, properly formatted, and the content is adequate.--malconfort (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Malconfort: please do a closer check of neutrality and close paraphrasing. I edited out a lot of close paraphrasing under Composition and lyrical interpretation and Critical reception, but don't have time to check all the sources. Using the same words as the source and just flipping them around isn't acceptable; the words might as well be put in quotes. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Note: the nominator has more than 5 DYK creation credits; please ask him if he has more than 5 DYK nomination credits, in which case a QPQ is required. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No it's not. QPQ is only required If am creator/contributor of the article. I have never done a QPQ for an article that I have purely nominated, I have not contributed anything to the article at all.  — ₳aron 10:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The rules changed on November 21. Now any nominator, be it self-nomination or nomination of someone else's work, has to submit a QPQ for each nom. Yoninah (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • QPQ done. (Thank you.) Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, rereading FourFiveSeconds, I believe this article needs a copy-editing. The problems you've pointed out are tied to the overuse of quotations. A trait common to music-related articles. For example, why we have that Rolling Stone in the middle of the music video section? How that quote relates to the previous paragraph?--malconfort (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Malconfort I added the quote in the second paragraph and also paraphrased some sentences. I hope it's good now. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I know. Can't it still be approved and sent to a queue? That still takes several days.  — ₳aron 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Rule D6 precludes approval until the content dispute ends. Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is not protected anymore and there is not edit warring. I believe the DYK can be promoted. — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Thank you for your ping on my talk page, @Calvin999:. Yes, the review is ready to go ahead, but as I read through the sources for the Composition and lyrical interpretation and Critical reception sections, I just kept finding more and more close paraphrasing. It's great to quote instead of copy, but the problem is that the lead-up to the quotes is copying the wording in the sources. Even though I spent time editing out the close paraphrasing in the first 3 sections, I really don't have the time or inclination to edit the whole article – that's your job. I suggest that @Tomica: go through the rest of the article with an editor's eye and get rid of the rest of the close paraphrasing, and then the nomination will be ready for review.
  • The copying is simply everywhere. Here, I just found it scrolling down the page:
  • Source: Wearing a black pantsuit, she performed the acoustic song against a white screen, which moved to reveal a curtained backdrop.
  • Article: For the performance, Rihanna wore a black pantsuit and was accompanied by West and McCartney who played the guitar. They performed the song against a white screen which later moved and revealed a curtained backdrop. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not a close paraphrasing. Should have I invented new words? How would you paraphrased it, please let me see the example. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I would delete this description altogether, as it contributes nothing to the article. The sentences before and after flow together perfectly. Please look at the changes I made today in the other sections. There are certainly more ways to say the same thing without using the author's original words. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Tomica, that source/article comparison is a textbook example of close paraphrasing, and not acceptable on Wikipedia, much less in DYK. If you can't see it, you might want to request the help of the Guild of Copy Editors to deal with it. Yoninah, if the close paraphrasing is "simply everywhere" and like the example you noted, then I recommend you consider tagging the article with a close paraphrasing template. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on February 1[edit]

Deruvian, Fagan (saint)

Lady Chapel, whose wooden precursor was credited to SS Fagan and Deruvian

5x expanded by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 14:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

  • I moved this nomination to February 1, the start of expansion, which is on time, fortunately. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — LlywelynII 03:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I fear US readers will interpret SS as meaning these are ships (or Nazis, I suppose). EEng (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Paging Martinevans123. EEng (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Good thing I thought of that already and linked it. There may be other problems but that's perfectly legitimate, possibly educational, and (being both terse and slightly unusual) good→great for a hook. — LlywelynII 03:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
That's my philosophy as well re hooks-as-education, but I couldn't resist making a crack. EEng (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Heh. (But stop writing here and scaring away the reviewers...) — LlywelynII 01:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Really? I scare reviewers? EEng (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
No, you don't, not me at least. I am attracted because I wrote about a church dedicated to another saint for the fallen sickness (fallen = valen), also SS. I think SS should not appear at all, unless you intend to attract extra clicks going for anything Nazi.
Symbol question.svg Both articles are interesting and well sourced. I wonder why one has Saint in the name, but not the other. The image is dramatic and free, but you need to make some connection to the hook, or do without. I would not try to educate by hook (did that for the first years on this page), but to make curious to click, and therefore suggest to reword the original hook to a quirky:
ALT5: ... that the possibly legendary saints Fagan and Deruvian were once credited as the apostles of Britain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't scare reviewers, but long discussions do. — LlywelynII 15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, but SS is perfectly valid and (with all due respect to your interests) only becomes Nazicentric when we cease using it for other legitimate purposes. It meant "saints" long before the National Socialists and, unless atheism catches on more than it has lately, will continue to be used long after the blackshirts' German name has been forgotten. Similarly, only the hooks that mention Glastonbury use the picture. Otherwise we do do without. In answer to your question, because of MOS:SAINTS: I agree that it's a stupid policy but—even when "Saint Xyz" is the ENGLISH COMMONNAME—there's a consensus that the page should be at vanilla "Xyz" unless a WP:NATURALDISambiguation is necessary. So, since there's no other notable "Deruvian", the page goes there. Since there are many other Fagans, he's Saint Fagan. (Actually, Fagan (saint) at the moment because someone didn't understand natural disambiguation, but hopefully we can move it at some point down the road to the right namespace.)
    Were you going to finish the rest of the review? or just offering your ALT for future reviewers? — LlywelynII 15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for many ideas, - some replies. SS is perfectly valid and historic etc, but not everything valid should go in a short statement on the Main page. If you link it it takes away clicks from your articles, - bad enough to have two. If you don't link, people will misunderstand. I agree that the guideline (!) is stupid, all saints should be created equal ;) - Got it about the image only for certain hooks. - I can't approve my own, sorry ;)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg review needed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)




Rob Hart

  • Reviewed: QPQ done later

5x expanded by ZappaOMati (talk). Self nominated at 04:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Newness of 5x OK, just over length limit, cites are fine and hook is directly cited. Just need the QPQ. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And maybe some minor edits: "Hart converted all ten field goals and twenty PATs". Twenty what's? Jargon = bad. Also, there's some nice quotes in cite 1 you might want to incorporate into the article, maybe even the hook? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Tsarap River

Tsarap River landslide and lake from Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8

Created by Mehrajmir13 (talk). Self nominated at 05:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC).





Development of The Last of Us

Neil Druckmann

Cordyceps fungus

Created by Rhain1999 (talk). Self nominated at 11:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC).



Sicarius of Brantôme

Created by Polylerus (talk). Self nominated at 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. Hook is unreferenced. It also doesn't say anywhere except in a category that he's a French saint. --Jakob (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Patterns of Evidence

  • ... that Patterns of Evidence is a 2015 documentary film analysing research regarding the date and historicity of the Biblical Exodus?

Created by Sm8900 (talk). Self nominated at 17:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

  • The proposed hook has a repetitious "new" in it. I'd suggest both are disposable: "...is a documentary film analysing research regarding the date and historicity of the Biblical Exodus". The vast majority of the current article is wholly uncited, but I don't know if that's a problem for DYK. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
hey, that makes sense. ok, I have done the edits that you suggested. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 2[edit]

John Pickard (professor)

  • QPQ: Julije Balović
  • Comment: Bjs-sec created this article at AfC. I did a bit of copyediting and am nominating it for DYK.

Created by Bjs-sec (talk). Nominated by Ceradon (talk) at 07:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 3[edit]

Raquel Liberman

Raquel Liberman with her two sons in Argentina in 1930

  • ... that Raquel Liberman escaped twice from slavery and helped to dissolve the Zwi Migdal, an early 20th-century Argentine human trafficking ring?
  • Comment: I started the translation from the Spanish article in my sandbox; Also I'm the author of this article in Spanish Wikipedia too

Moved to mainspace by Bsea (talk). Self nominated at 02:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg This article is new enough and long enough. No QPQ needed. Citations generally look OK, AGFing because most are Spanish. However, there are two significant problems. One is that it does not read like native English: a lot reads like translationese. Also, there is some very close paraphrasing of the only English source, the JWA article. Relentlessly (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Worthy article on a subject I knew nothing about. But it needs a few more rough edges smoothed off before it's ready for MP. It's just too obvious when << >> is used instead of quotes. Can someone with knowledge of Spanish help with this? EEng (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reviews, with this feed back I can improve my English and sorry for my lateness. Yes many of the citation are in Spanish, I found some English sources. For a quick check watch this video of a future film of Gabriela Bohm [14] it gives same information, but this best source will give extra information to the article and check all the Spanish citations, [15] search "Raquel Liberman", I found also this one [16] that gives an idea of the trafficking network. If any of you or anyone interested in the article or subject can give a native English to it. Will be very welcome.--Bsea (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)



Traian Bratu

Created by Biruitorul (talk). Self nominated at 04:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

  • bereft is a bit poetic for an earlobe.
ALT3 ... that years of clashes with the far right cost Romanian Germanist Traian Bratu an earlobe?
EEng (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)




Born Hater

Created by 001Jrm (talk). Self nominated at 07:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Cool article! Length, new, cites, QPQ all good to go. However I think the hook is a bit of a mouthful, any objection to:
ALT1 ... that internet haters questioning Tablo's credentials caused his band Epik High to go on hiatus, a problem they addressed in their 2014 song, "Born Hater"?
@Maury Markowitz Thanks for reviewing. I'm ok with your alt. :) 001Jrm (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

His band required a Stanford degree? That must be some cerebral band! EEng (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@EEng Nope, at the time that the band was really famous (prob. based on awards and recognition), the news of Tablo (member of Epik High) attaining two degrees in Stanford within 3 1/2 years came up, and his haters began to make a fuss out of it. Tablo tried to provide solid proofs and evidences (Stanford even made an article about it), but his haters did not believe him. Instead, his family started receiving death threats and more leading his band to a long hiatus. 001Jrm (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have time just now but I think a careful review of the Stanford article just linked should yield a snappier hook -- I'd focus on the irony of going to Stanford somehow leading to death threats. EEng (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Uhhhmm,, how about..
ALT2 ... that Tablo's degrees from Stanford led his Internet haters to make death threats against his family and his band Epik High to go on hiatus, a problem he mentioned in their 2014 song "Born Hater"?
I'm okay with your alt, but then "Born Hater" is not just about Tablo's haters, but also the other rappers' haters, so I'm not sure if it should be clarified in the alt. Thanks! :) 001Jrm (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
A hook doesn't have to be optimally specific. But try:
ALT4 ... that in Epik High's 2014 song "Born Hater", Tablo sings about death threats against his family related to his Stanford degrees?
That way it sounds a bit less like that's all the song is about (more weird too). EEng (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
haha. I'm actually okay with either hooks, just making sure of it. Anyways, it's up to the reviewer what hook s/he'll like best. Thanks so much for 'guiding' me through to a much better hook! haha. 001Jrm (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on February 4[edit]

Barbara Newman

Created by Altenmaeren (talk). Self nominated at 12:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Can we improve the balance in this article. She seems to be a brilliant person with a brilliant book. Is there not someone who doesn't agree with this religious historian (or does she not tackle controversy?) :-) Oh and can it be used for Womens History Month when approved? Victuallers (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • thanks for having a look! I'm trying to find some controversy, but it's surprisingly hard -- I guess if she were a theologian it would be different. There was a conference she organized a few years back on Goddesses that might've had some controversy. Anyhow, yes, I'd love to have this be a part of women's history month if I can get it approved. Altenmaeren (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

St. Peter, Leipzig

lithography of the church

  • ... that the present Peterskirche (pictured) in Leipzig replaced a former Gothic church of the same congregation at a different location?

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 15:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

Building a new church in a different location is pretty darn commonplace. Can't you think of anything else? EEng (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)



Arang

Three sculptures of Jain tirthankaras in the Bhand_Dewal Temple

  • ... that the Bhand Deval Jain temple is an ancient temple of 11th century in Arang where three huge sculptures of nude tirthankaras (pictured) of Jain religion are deified?

5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk). Self nominated at 06:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC).


Valhalla train crash

Train crash at Valhalla, New York

Created by Ktr101 (talk), Epicgenius (talk), Mjroots (talk), (talk), and Daniel Case (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 19:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

  • I have rewritten the hooks to be more interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No need to rewrite; just simply add. I added back my first three hooks and converted your hooks into ALTs. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that just-the-facts-ma'am hooks are dull as grey dishwater (and even more so when they're just three different ways of phrasing the same thing). By the time this hook runs, the story will be old news. Better to use something people won't be aware of. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, DC. EEng (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that none of the above alt hooks are particularly interesting, and make the crash sound as run-off the mill as deadly train crashes go. I have an alternative:
I'd like to officially add this alt hook to this nomination. Epic Genius (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure. However, unfortunately, it is "run of the mill as deadly train crashes go." Yes, it's the deadliest in the railroad's history. But six deaths is rather a small number of fatalities compared to some other "deadliests" in other railroads' history. Also consider that it's not that exceptional since MNRR has had only two passenger-fatality accidents in its history. Which actually suggests another hook possibility:
  • Let me suggest we put this on hold awhile until the investigation develops something more interesting. EEng (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That could take months. In the meantime, we could, it has occurred to me, fold that "deadliest" bit int some of the other hooks. I will try later. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
How about death by third-rail debris? (BTW, I'd just as soon see the names of the dead removed from the article -- I don't see how they serve the reader's understanding of the subject, and it's a bit invasive, especially given the recency of this.) EEng (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
They have been widely reported already, one of them has turned out to be notable, and no one's objected to the similar section in December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt they're widely reported. My fundamental concern is that it just doesn't give the reader any better understanding of the accident. EEng (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
We also have a list of victims of the Virginia Tech shooting in that article (albeit in a box; which perhaps we could consider here). Apparently the practice is fairly widespread. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply since that refers specifically to articles about the recently deceased regardless of notability, not mentions of their names in articles about the notable events that led to their passing. Basically, if you think this is something we shouldn't ever ever do, the issue should be addressed globally as a policy reform. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big deal and I don't feel strongly about it, nor do I see it as a global issue. For me it's just a question of editorial judgment: 5 years from now, will readers wanting to learn about the accident find their understanding improved by this list of names? I happen to think the answer is No, and that this clutters up the article. I wouldn't mention it except that, in addition, for a recent event it's a bit WP:NEWSy to include this information, and -- yes -- I think it's kind of invasive. Please don't quote any more policies because the question isn't whether it's allowable, just whether it improves the article. EEng (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, sorry if I misread you. You have a point ... perhaps this will not seem relevant in a few years. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes... but it's relevant now, so we should come up with a hook that makes the reader interested. Like this:
Epic Genius (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In that vein, as per my previous suggestion of combining the "deadliest" aspect with the other hooks:
* ALT9:... that the driver killed in the Valhalla train crash (wreckage pictured), the deadliest in Metro-North Railroad's history, had her Mercedes-Benz ML350 on the tracks for about 30 seconds before the train hit it?
* ALT10:... that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are considering whether traffic detouring around an accident on the nearby Taconic State Parkway was a contributing factor to the Valhalla train crash (wreckage pictured), the deadliest in Metro-North Railroad's history?


Inclusive Church

  • ... that Inclusive Church advocates for the full inclusion of all people in the church regardless of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation?
  • Comment: The rules say that to nominate I should be autoconfirmed; I'm not yet, but hopefully it's not a problem!

Created by Relentlessly (talk). Self nominated at 12:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Source confirms DYK hook. Best, .jonatalk 01:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Removed from prep per discussion at WT:DYK, and request from nominator to place this on hold for a couple of weeks while more secondary sources are found, especially for the hook fact. Original review is clearly inadequate, failing to mention basic things like size, newness, neutrality, and close paraphrasing. Once Relentlessly posts here that the article has been updated and is ready, a full review will need to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Waveform Graphics

An example of waveform graphics on the VT105

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 14:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC).








Articles created/expanded on February 5[edit]

Victoria Lauría

Created by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Fufu (dog)

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nominated at 22:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Comments:
    1. The hook is inaccurate in referring to "Crown Princess", a title which doesn't currently exist.
    2. This seems like a potential BLP (and in Thailand, possibly criminal) issue. Since the WP:DYK rules state that "articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided," this hook might not appropriate for the Main Page. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Paul. A dog being conferred the title of "Air Chief Marshal" is hooky enough IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it's got an iron-clad source (and I'm not saying it does) I don't see a BLP problem, but I do think the dog's name might be enough. EEng (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Added former and linked article in original hook. Fuebaey (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Broadmoor Sirens

One of the Broadmoor Sirens

  • ... that the Broadmoor Sirens (pictured) are activated every Monday at 10 am in preparation to warn residents of escaped patients from Broadmoor?

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 11:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Interesting and rather creepy article. It's well-written and just about long enough. Sourcing is fine, with plenty of citations and appropriate sources; the hook is interesting and is also sourced. QPQ has been done. Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The hook as phrased makes it sound like the activate the sirens as a prelude to intentionally allowing a patient to escape, which I somehow doubt is the protocol actually in use.

  • ALT1 ... that the Broadmoor Sirens (pictured)—​tested every Monday at 10 am—​are used to warn residents that a patient has escaped from Broadmoor? EEng (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that proposed hook. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Another tweak:
  • ALT2: ... that the Broadmoor Sirens (pictured), used to warn local residents that a patient has escaped from Broadmoor, are tested every Monday at 10 am? Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Both ALTs are clearly superior to the original hook, which is awkward at best. I've struck the original. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 02:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with ALT2 is it gives emphasis to the testing over the possibility Hannibal Lecter abroad on the desolate, windswept moors.
ALT3 ... that the Broadmoor Sirens (pictured) are tested every Monday at 10 am to ensure their readiness to give warning should a patient escape from Broadmoor?
EEng (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think ALT3 is probably the best one here. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"... abroad on the desolate, windswept moors"?! I'll have you know Crowthorne looks very nice at this time of year. That nice Mrs. Lecter often helps out down at the RSPB charity shop, as does the local verger.Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Could be worse -- Hannibal Lecter could be a broad on the windswept moors. EEng (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This appears to have got sidetracked. Can we get a new review in please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As stated previously by Prioryman, this article qualifies for DYK on the grounds of newness and length. The image is properly licensed and the article is neutral, and I found no evidence of copyright/close paraphrasing violations. ALT3 seems to be acceptable to everyone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you withholding the tick just to tease us? EEng (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Project Camelot

  • ... that the U.S. Army cancelled Project Camelot on the day Congress began investigating it?
  • ALT1:... that Chileans correctly predicted the use of military-funded social science research in overthrowing their government?
  • Reviewed: Tarrant County Corrections Center
  • Comment: For some reason, DYK check isn't giving me a green light ... but when I run the numbers the new version seems to be five times bigger than previous versions. Suggestions for more images to use in the article would be cool... it's fairly black-and-white-looking at the moment. Oh, and the benefit to using the first hook listed is that the DYK hook can be run on July 8, 2015, the 50-year anniversary of the day in question. (There is even a picture to go with this but it's not terribly appealing, visually, nor earthshattering in its significance.) NB: Open to better ways of wording the first hook. shalom, groupuscule (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

5x expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nominated at 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC).


Articles created/expanded on February 6[edit]

Kayla Mueller

Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 00:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

  • I got pinged by my name here, but I didn't create the article or the DYK. Not sure if this is a mistake or something else, but I've removed my name. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, February 15, 2015 (UTC)



Jane Eyre (1910 film)

Created/expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk), ChrisGualtieri (talk), BD2412 (talk), Goustien (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)) at 14:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Article meets all DYK requirements. Recent GA. Over 9,000 characters. Hook is referenced sourced and interesting. Good job!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hook has been removed from queue. The source (which I'm not sure is reliable anyways) does not even mention the 1910 adaptation. If the 1909 adaptation "started a craze", it's perfectly possible that there were two or more in 1910, and that the craze peaked in 1915. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: struck the problematic hook; fixed some punctuation in the Create/expanded section. A new hook will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing problematic about the original and accurate and cited hook. The New York Times erroneously claimed that this was the first of the series, while overlooking an Italian version that predates the 1910 film."From Household Word to Household Object: An Exhibition on Charlotte Brontë’s "Jane Eyre"". Rare Books School.org. 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2015. "Film and Television Adaptations". The Enthusiast's Guide to Jane Eyre. 2014. Retrieved 7 February 2015. McGrath, Charles (4 March 2011). "Another Hike on the Moors for ‘Jane Eyre’". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2015.  I think you should reconsider. 7&6=thirteen () 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First, that is still OR by WP:SYNTH. Understandable (quite possible), but still OR. Second, I still haven't seen any evidence that Rare Books School is an RS, either in general or in terms of film history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we will need a new hook. I overlooked and misinterpreted this from the "Enthusiasts' Guide": "Jane Eyre {1909) Italian silent film Jane Eyre (1910) Italian silent film Director: Mario Caseini Jane Eyre (1910) Irma Taylor (Jane Eyre) Frank Crane (Mr. Rochester) Amelia Barleon Alphonse Esther Wm Garwood Director: Theodore Marston" [Emphasis added.] That is all from one source. I misread that as referring to the same Italian film. "Rare" says, "The first known film of Jane Eyre came out as a silent Italian movie in 1909." The New York Times wrote: "So far there have been at least 18 film versions, going back to a 1910 silent movie," Assuming that is true, this would make it the second or third international version, depending upon timing in 1910. It would still be the first English language version. All the sources agree on that, at least.
As to the reliability of the source rare, I quote from their home page: "Rare Book School (RBS) is an independent non-profit educational institute supporting the study of the history of books and printing and related subjects. Founded in 1983, it moved to its present home at the University of Virginia in 1992. RBS director Terry Belanger was one of 25 fellows named by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation on September 20th."
Here is another source, which is now in the article: “It underwent four American film adaptations in 1910, 1914, 1915 and 1921 . . .”Gillespie, Paul; Engel, Manfred; Dieter, Bernard (14 February 2008). Gerald, Ernest, ed. Romantic Prose Fiction. Benjamins, John Publishing Company. p. 684. ISBN 9789027234568. Retrieved 15 February 2015. 
Here is a final source: Ingham, Patricia. The Brontës (Authors in Context). Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press). p. 263. ISBN 0-19-284035-5. ISBN 978-0-19-284035-6. Retrieved 15 February 2015. 
Additionally, there are Italian sources cited in the article, in the context of the identity of the director, which support at least the production date. 7&6=thirteen () 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
My inclination, offhand, is to consider "Rare Books" reliable. But piecing together who's first and second, etc., this way is SYNTH. We'd need a single, authoritative source which comprehensively lists all known productions to work from. Even then we'd probably have to say "appears to be the first/second" etc. EEng (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All the sources are consistent on that. 7&6=thirteen () 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Gillespie supports it's being the first American production, but I'm still not clear on how you get that it's the first in English. EEng (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)



Sumner Howard, John C. Shields

Created by Allen3 (talk). Self nominated at 17:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Alright, I'm going to go through my checklist: Both articles are new enough, and are definitely long enough. As far as I can tell, there are no policy problems with either article. The hook is pretty good, and I'm going to AGF on the offline source. One problem I might see is that there is no mention of Howard in Shields' article. I gave both articles a quick, unprofessional copyedit (feel free to revert what I did). Overall, this looks pretty good. If anything could be done about Howard in Shields' article, then I think these are ready for the main page Nice work, Allen3. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@A Texas Historian:Since when has a requirement for a complete hook fact to be present in every article within a multi-article hook been instituted? See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 94#Hook-fact in multi-hooks for a past discussion on this concern. for a prior discussion of this issue. --Allen3 talk 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Although it isn't a requirement, it just seems like a relevant fact to include in Shields' article. However, it isn't a barrier to promotion, so Symbol confirmed.svg Approved. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 01:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on February 7[edit]

Garden hermit

Created by Stalwart111 (talk). Self nominated at 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Interesting topic, but the article currently fails the minimum size (1500 characters) criterion. The article is little more than a stub currently, and since an entire book is dedicated to the subject, the subject is clearly not adequately treated (additional criterion D7) and there obviously exists room for expansion. I would also, suggest re the referencing, to provide page numbers for the books you consulted. Constantine 14:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
We do require the 1500 characters, but coverage need not comprehensively, or even nominally, track the book's coverage. It just needs to not look like a work in progress, and deal with the subject "adequately", which is a very elastic requirement. Let's hope the nominator can get it up to 1500 characters in time. EEng (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course coverage should not track the book's, but it does suggest that there is some way to go for the article to be considered close to "adequately" presenting the subject in question. Even if it barely scraped by the 1500 character limit, it still would fail that criterion. Constantine 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but borrowing from WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not I think the right benchmark is 'the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be addressed in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects'. EEng (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't expect to see a featured article. But I do expect something that at least makes an effort to cover the main aspects, as you say. Currently it doesn't. Anyhow, the discussion is moot unless and until the article creator expands this. Constantine 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha, thanks for the notes guys. Happy to expand it, though there isn't much beyond, "people kept real-life hermits in their gardens". I didn't want it to become just a list of estates that kept hermits but I'm sure I can find a few hundred more words. Stlwart111 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The book in question, according to a number of reviews, does get bogged down in providing a list of such estates (about 2/3 of the book apparently). Stlwart111 00:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Just looked at the dustjacket blurb and there's plenty of material there. Let's put the nom on hold for a while pending article expansion. We shouldn't lose this one! EEng (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem on my behalf to wait a bit. It's up to the article author. Constantine 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Happy to postpone. What's the process? Stlwart111 22:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No process. This discussion can just sit while you flesh out the article. But don't drag your feet or people begin to get pissy. EEng (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'll start working on it. Stlwart111 23:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Michael Potts (diplomat)

Created by Stalwart111 (talk). Self nominated at 06:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

  • This article was created and nominated on the same day. Prose is longer than than 1500 characters (2401). Hook is interesting, and has one incline citation. Neutrality is maintained. Symbol confirmed.svg  — ₳aron 17:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Pulled from prep: the hook is not only longer than the DYK maximum, but I find it confusingly written and less effective without the name of the country. Please come up with something more concise. When a new ALT hook has been proposed and this is reviewed again, the reviewer should check for close paraphrasing, since the original review doesn't mention it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, which country name is missing?
How about - ... that Michael Potts was Australian High Commissioner to PNG during the "shoe episode" and that protesters passed a petition through the High Commission's front gates demanding an apology Australia? - Stlwart111 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Papua New Guinea" is missing; if you want to grab people, a usage like "PNG", even if linked, is going to lessen the effect. Also, the new hook has a grammatical problem, and adding the needed word after "apology" is going to make the hook either borderline or overlong. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As will extending "PNG" from acronym to proper title. I've edited the hook a couple of times and can't seem to get it right. What would you suggest? Stlwart111 02:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 8[edit]

Westerhout 40

Created by OtterAM (talk). Self nominated at 15:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC).


The Ascension (Glenn Branca album)

5x expanded by Hinnk (talk). Self nominated at 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC).



Beirut I (1960)

  • ... that the electoral district Beirut I had the largest concentration of Jewish voters in Lebanon?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 20:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC).


Borghild Project

  • ... that the Borghild Project was hailed as proof that the Third Reich was building a sex doll for its soldiers, although the existence of this project has been called into question?

Created by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 16:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC).


Life's Shop Window

  • ... that Life's Shop Window was the first film produced by the corporate predecessor of Fox Films, the Box Office Attractions Company?

Moved to mainspace by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk). Self nominated at 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Sarah Bezra Nicol

  • Reviewed: QPQ = Nicole Haislett
  • Comment: copyedits, improvements and alts welcome. Thanks. This is for Women's History Month. Emma Nicol is also new but shares similar text

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 16:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

T. Rex and the Crater of Doom

  • Reviewed: Zhang Ruoxu
  • Comment: Moved to mainspace today. It was in my userspace before that.

Created by Silver seren (talk). Self nominated at 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Name, date, length, hook, and checks for plagiarism all check out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I pulled this from prep because the hook implies that the asteroid theory of dinosaur extinction is generally accepted science the universally accepted explanation of long standing, which it's not. Hook needs to acknowedge this, but I didn't feel comfortably making such a change on the fly in prep. Perhaps
ALT1... that T. Rex and the Crater of Doom details the development of the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the Chicxulub impactor?
EEng (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I am amused that this book details the people who refused to believe the evidence regardless of how firm it is and now this has been pulled back by someone who disagrees with the scientific consensus on the topic (which is real regardless of what you think in regards to it). But, that's fine, I like the wording of your hook better anyways, though one change:
ALT2... that T. Rex and the Crater of Doom details the development of the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor impact?
I prefer that wording for casual readers. SilverserenC 18:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested. SilverserenC 18:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I should have put my concerns more precisely (now modified above), but nonetheless I believe the original hook implies a level of "fact"-hood yet to be achieved. EEng (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That works for me, so my apologies for not catching when I went through the hook the first time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg So, can we get someone else in here to approve the ALT2 hook? The article has already been reviewed and approved, it's just the new hook that needs to be approved. SilverserenC 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Dan Deacon: U.S.A.

Improved to Good Article status by 23W (talk). Self nominated at 04:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

The Childhood of a Leader (film)

Created by Jockzain (talk). Nominated by Captain Assassin! (talk) at 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

Oh boy, filming's underway, I know. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 10:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Bryan Martin

Northern Neck Proprietary

5x expanded by Caponer (talk). Self nominated at 03:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on February 9[edit]

God Nisanov

  • ... that God is Jewish?
  • ALT1:... that God is a Mountain Jew from Azerbaijan and a billionaire property developer in Moscow?
  • Reviewed: tba

Created by Edwardx (talk), Zigzig20s (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Maybe a bit more punch:

ALT2:... that God is a billionaire property developer?

EEng (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I have struck ALT1. Edwardx (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Last slot, of course. EEng (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
And my favourite slot. Edwardx (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Juan Rosario Mazzone

Created by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 14:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

Quinceañera (film)

  • ... that the directors of Quinceañera shot the film in their neighbors' houses, based the story partly on their young neighbor's birthday party, and cast their cleaning lady in a role?
  • ALT1:... that the directors of Quinceañera shot the film in their neighbors' houses and cast their cleaning lady in a role?
  • ALT2:... that the directors of Quinceañera shot the film in their own house and employed their neighbors as extras?
  • Reviewed: Murder of Michelle Garvey
  • Comment: There are plenty of fun facts about the film's unconventional production process – I wasn't sure which were the most appealing or which made the best combination so I suggested a few.

5x expanded by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 11:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

  • The directors' cleaning lady, or the neighbors'?



Otro Día Más Sin Verte

5x expanded (first two), created (second two) by AJona1992 (talk). Self nominated at 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Is it possible to nominate multiple articles like this? Something tells me they should be done separately. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Snuggums, it's definitely possible, and not uncommon. In fact, it's a good idea for related articles. The main page currently has a hook with two creek articles in it, and prep 3 has a hook about two kinds of coral, each with its own bold article link. Because there are four articles (one album and three singles), there will need to be four QPQs supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to AJona1992: the Inclusive Church QPQ was not adequate and cannot be counted; that nomination was pulled and is currently on hold while the nominator makes improvements to the article. The Telmatobius ventriflavum review needs completion—I've marked it for further review—and could be used if you check the remaining criteria. Your QPQ reviews need to mention all the criteria you review, and should cover all those criteria listed above the DYK template editing box. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Notice: I am waiting for all four QPQ's to be completed before giving my assessment of the hook. Ping or message me when they're complete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: all four reviews are complete. Best, jona(talk) 00:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I will now check the sources for this hook Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg As far as I can tell, we're good to go- reliably sourced, long enough, and interesting hook. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Snuggums, a DYK review isn't merely an assessment of the hook. You need to review each of the four bold-linked articles for all the DYK criteria: newness, length, neutrality, close paraphrasing, and so on, and say how successfully each fulfills the various criteria, in addition to reviewing the hook. If that's what you actually did, then please be more specific in your write-up. Thanks. (Note: if you aren't prepared to review all four articles, we can call for a new reviewer.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not being more specific, that was my comment for all four. I also couldn't find any close paraphrasing issues in any of the articles, and am pretty sure they're all neutral. Can't find anything indicating otherwise. The expansion is large enough for the first two articles, and the others were created recently enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Thanks, Snuggums. Good to know. Unfortunately, while the album article should be fine, since it was expanded first, this nomination founders on the three singles articles because they each reuse a huge chunk of the album article, and by WP:DYKSG#A5 this requires a 5x expansion of the copied chunk: If some of the text were copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. Basically, when "Angel" was expanded from 283 prose characters to the current 2550 prose characters, the new Production and success section included text totaling 849 prose characters copied exactly from the album article. That's 1132 pre-existing prose characters out of 2550; and a 5x expansion would require 6660 prose characters. "Do You Believe in Us" and "Sentir" are in even worse case: 934 prose characters from the "Angel" Production and success section—their entire first paragraphs of the identically named section—were copied into them, making their requirement 4670 prose characters; as they are 1790 and 1999 prose characters respectively, they're impossibly short of what's needed. AJona1992, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but only the Otro Día Más Sin Verte article is going to qualify for DYK. You could use the same basic hook with the singles articles unbolded, but at 211 characters it would need to be edited down by at least 11 characters to remain legal. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I trimmed the hook and removed the mentioned singles since I won't be expanding them to comply with the DYK rules. Best, jona(talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. Any concerns I might have missed, BlueMoonset? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What the source for the hook (FN16) says is not what the hook and article say. The Billboard article says that Secada was the first artist to have "four consecutive No. 1 singles on Billboard's Hot Latin Tracks chart". That's not the same thing as four from the same album, which is what the article and hook say. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
All four singles belonged to his album, I don't see why the source has to say it came from the album if the songs were released from his Spanish-language debut? jona(talk) 02:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on February 10[edit]

Sacred Sperm

Created by Fuebaey (talk). Self nominated at 16:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

  • ALT3:... that permission was granted to produce Sacred Sperm?

(if you get my drift...) EEng (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


Maggie Daley Park, Maggie Daley Park ice skating ribbon

Maggie Daley Park ice skating ribbon

5x expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 05:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC).


Mrigayaa

Mamata-Shankar in 2002

5x expanded by Vensatry (talk). Self nominated at 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC).




Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

  • ... that the creator of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 intended for it to be a statement of "free speech absolutism" to break a "cycle of hate"?

Created by The Almightey Drill (talk). Self nominated at 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Note: This article is currently at AfD, here. Harrias talk 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Consensus to keep. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I can definitely see this as helping break the cycle of hate. Oil on troubled waters for sure. EEng (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit tells you what is going on here. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
What I did on another Wiki has no bearing on a DYK nomination. This hook and article is neutral and factual. It's amazing what lengths people would go to in order to stop something they don't like being on Wikipedia. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately not difficult to find at all. You have thrown your own motives into doubt so you will excuse us if we view your contributions with a jaundiced eye. I can never, ever, imagine making that edit. I am surprised, to be honest, that your response was not to say that you made a serious mistake with that edit and you are now editing in a more constructive manner. It's the only response that could possibly earn you the benefit of the doubt now. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Symbol delete vote.svg OK, since you insist, let's start with the fact that your fair-use rationales [17][18] betray a misunderstanding of the requirement of Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) because the value supplied ("Only to be used in this article") has nothing to do with what NFCC#3 requires. After you fix that I'm sure someone else will come along to do a full review, and when that happens I suggest you remember WP:NOTPLACEFORHUFFYPOSTINGOFSHORTCUTSNOTLIKELYTODISPOSESOMEONETOHELPYOUOUT. EEng (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Followup: Given the nominator's nasty history as seen in the link Philafrenzy supplies above, I would like to invite other editors to scrutinize the nominated article carefully, to ensure that its appearance on Wikipedia's Main Page "Did You Know" section (if indeed that happens) will serve DYK's purpose of highlighting new content, helping draw new editors in, and other nice things. WP is of course WP:NOTCENSORED, but it's also not WP:THEKNOWINGTOOLOFPROMOTINGNASTINESS. Jus' sayin'. EEng (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Further followup: Turns out the nominator's offensive, primitive, and inflammatory vandalism -- renaming Simple's Muhammed page "Camel raping paedophile cunt" (see link posted above by Philafrenzy) -- was not a one-time thing. Stimulated by his clueless and unapologetic response (also above) I looked again and stumbled onto this followup he made [19], inserting into that same article an image of a male anus penetrated by a sex toy, with the caption "Picture of Muhammad".

Either of these two edits alone would bring the nominator's judgment into more-than-serious question, but the combination of the two is such that it behooves us to make absolutely certain that this article meets the very highest standards, prior to even considering featuring it on Main Page. Under no circumstances can anything be accepted on the nominator's GF, as we often do here at DYK, given that his prior actions have overdrawn his good-faith account to a negative balance that, frankly, cannot be made good for a very long time, if ever.

I might point out that the nominator, by these edits, managed to simultaneously denigrate three quite disparate groups -- those who hold Muhammed sacred (by associating him with sexual acts the nominator apparently feels are humiliating); those with particular sexual tastes (ditto); and Wikipedia (by using the project as a vehicle for the first two) -- quite an accomplishment, I must say. Tellingly, a glance at the nominator's contributions at Simple [20] suggests a preoccupation with certain sexual practices such as to suggest, in context, that an element of self-hatred may be in play here as well.

Contrary to the nominator's accusation, when I posted my original comment on this nomination ("Yes, I can definitely see this as helping break the cycle of hate. Oil on troubled waters for sure") it was not with a view toward derailing it, but as a lighthearted (if that word may excused) way of alerting my fellow editors to the need for a heightened level of quality control. But the men and women of Charlie Hebdo didn't die so that Wikipedia could feature the kind of dumbfuckery this editor has inflicted on it in the past, and we need to be absolutely certain this isn't a continuation of his sick and destructive little joke.

If the nominator has any sense of decency he'll spare the rest of us that unpleasantness, withdraw the nomination, and slink quietly away. But if not, I invite other editors to opine on how we should approach this matter. (Anyone brave enough to review deserves free QPQ for life.)

EEng (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For the moment the matter of the flawed NFCC rationales (see the Symbol delete vote.svg above) remains unaddressed, and there's no point bothering with this until that's taken care of. With any luck that will be the passive end of this matter.

Further ALTs:

ALT2 ... that Vice News called the developer of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 an "idiot", saying that the game could be "an insanely labour-intensive attempt at being murdered in order to win a Darwin Award"?
ALT3 ... that far be it from ALT3 to call the DYK nomination of Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 "an insanely labour-intensive attempt at being murdered in order to win a Darwin Award"?

EEng (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Australia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015

  • Comment: My only contribution was adding citations and adding a bit more background. I don't think that's enough to require a QPQ.

Created by Sammywand365 (talk). Nominated by ViperSnake151 (talk) at 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @ViperSnake151: DYK's rules recently changed so that every nomination (whether the nominator worked on the article or not) needs a QPQ, unless the user has fewer than five DYK credits. This means that you need to provide a QPQ regardless. 97198 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/The Taliban Shuffle (film). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg QPQ has now been provided. Full review needed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on February 11[edit]

Two Girls Dressing a Kitten by Candlelight

Joseph Wright of Derby, Two Girls Dressing a Kitten by Candlelight, c. 1768-70

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 11:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg both hooks and the article are well reffed. Lengths are fine. The image is free although a crop for DYK might make it more clear. Its neutral and I couldn't spot any close paraphrasing. Thanks to you two. Victuallers (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have just done a small crop (purely for the purpose of the DYK of course!) and will add it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg thx and oops, we missed the QPQ.... and I would suggest you crop the pic down heavily to a detail of a face or the kitten as it still looks poor at 100x100 imo Victuallers (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Though it now only shows one girl, but perhaps that makes it more clickable. I will add a QPQ shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)



Morrissey: 25 Live

Go with the clearer ALT 1 or ALT 2. Schmidt, Michael Q.
  • Reviewed: Three Weeks With Lady X
  • Comment: Found at AFD as a 429 character unsourced stub. As numerous sources existed, it was simple to bring it up to 3151 characters in a 7x expansion. ( Now at 11x expansion. Face-smile.svg )

5x expanded by MichaelQSchmidt (talk). Self nominated at 09:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg @MichaelQSchmidt: Needs a serious copyedit - "and event marking 25 years", ROS lede, etc. Willing to take a stab at it if you're OK with that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Good catch. I just did some copyedit and tweaks and built it to a 14x expansion. Please see if you like the changes. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg I assume you intended to say that tickets for the concert sold out in 12 seconds. What the hook actually says is that tickets for the film sold out in 12 seconds. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 09:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Good eye Mandarax, thanks. It now no longer infers film tickets. Face-smile.svg Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a minor edit in the lede, please check it and make sure it is correct. I think you have a wonderful reception section now, but we still have almost nothing on the film itself. There are bits and pieces in the reception section that do describe the film, so I'd suggest pulling them out and combining them with the Cast section to produce a new section like Plot (although I'm sure there's a better name). Ideally that would be longer than the reviews, but in this case I suspect it will be difficult to manage more than a few paras. But even an arching overview of the film would help a lot, and remember, you don't have to cite material taken from the subject itself. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mandarax: @Maury Markowitz: Through addressing concerns and doing some requested expansion, the article is now at 18x-19x expansion. Anyone care to promote this DYK? Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Now a 20x expannsion. This topic just keeps on giving. Face-smile.svg. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The original hook felt a little clumsy, so I offer a more clearly written ALT:
  • ALT 2 ... that the documentary Morrissey: 25 Live commemorates Morrissey's 25-year solo career, and was filmed at a concert that sold out in 12 seconds?

Development of Red Dead Redemption

Improved to Good Article status by Rhain1999 (talk). Self nominated at 06:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on February 12[edit]

Fjällhyddan

  • Comment: (Still makes the 7-day deadline in my timezone.) I am fairly sure this is only the third article I nominate - if not, I will happily review another, which I intend to do anyway.

Created by Stamboliyski (talk). Self nominated at 22:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

F. C. Love

  • Reviewed: tba

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self nominated at 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Tom Love

  • Reviewed: tba

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self nominated at 23:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

2015 Chapel Hill shooting

  • ALT1:... that the suspect of the deadly shootings Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was the victims' next-door neighbor?
  • Reviewed: Lilian Knowles
  • Comment: Failed ITN nomination; don't know when it'll be re-nominated. The article was created on 11 February (UTC), a day prior to further fivefold. Feel free to add more ALTs.

5x expanded by Classicfilms (talk), WWGB (talk), Aumnamahashiva (talk), and Libertarian12111971 (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 06:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Elise Otté

Created by Themightyquill (talk), Ipigott (talk), Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC).




The Beginning or the End

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self nominated at 20:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC).

John Gosse Freeze

  • ... that John Gosse Freeze was on the bar of Columbia County, Pennsylvania for more than sixty years, retiring only a few years before his death?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 13:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on February 13[edit]

H to He, Who Am the Only One

5x expanded by Ritchie333 (talk), Mark in wiki (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 16:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Expansion started on 13 February, so I moved the nomination accordingly. George Ho (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)



The Secret Diaries of Miss Miranda Cheever, On the Way To the Wedding

Created by Karanacs (talk). Self nominated at 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Karanacs, 2 QPQs needed. More than 5 credits. On the Way To the Wedding: Article created by Karanacs on February 13, 2015. 3218 B.
  • The Secret Diaries of Miss Miranda Cheever: Article created by Karanacs on February 13, 2015. 3917 B. Verified hook. Cited online.--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is the first I've ever heard of QPQ; I guess the rules have changed since I last did DYK several years ago, and it is not listed on the nomination page. I do all my reviewing at WP:FAC, so I guess we can withdraw this. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


St. Paul's Cathedral, Abidjan

St. Paul's Cathedral in Abidjan

  • ... that the St. Paul's Cathedral, Abidjan (pictured) is one of the largest cathedrals in the world built at an estimated cost of US $12 million?

5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 20:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

I'm admittedly a little dubious that it's still one of the largest cathedrals in the world. Doesn't the source date to 1986? Nearly 30 years ago now. It's vague as it could be one of the 100 largest cathedrals or one of the five largest, we have no idea. I'd change it to that at the time of completion in 1985 or "as of 2002 it was the second largest cathedral in Africa" and be more precise if that's what the source says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Alt1 Hook suggested.--Nvvchar. 05:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Alt1 Hook ... that as of 2002 St. Paul's Cathedral, Abidjan (pictured) was the second largest cathedral in Africa, built at an estimated cost of US $12 million?
I'm just wondering why there are so many photos in the article that all show virtually the same thing? Schwede66 08:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Views from different angles. Deleted two imgs.--Nvvchar. 12:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Stuyvesant Apartments

The Stuyvesant in 1934

Created by Anna Frodesiak (talk), Beyond My Ken (talk). Nominated by Revent (talk) at 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article has been created within the seven day requirement. It is long enough, interesting topic, cites in-line sources, and presents a neutral point of view. The main hook is interesting, well below the 200 character limit and is supported by an in-line citation. The images are good and taken from the Historic American Building Survey, which has been accepted as in the public domain. I am in the process of checking for plagiarism, close paraphrasing and copyvios. Bruin2 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the citations that I can find on the Internet, and there appear to be no copyvios, close paraphrasing or plagiarism issues. I did find a couple of possible problems that are not covered by the DYK review requirements, but which you may want to correct:
  • Reference 6 has a hot link that apparently led to the wrong article.
  • Reference 8 actually refers to content of a book, but is hot-linked to a Wikipedia article that describes that book. I think the book information should be shown in a separate section (e. g. Sources). Then, the in-line citation in your text would simply read "Burrows and Wallace, p. 971.
  • Although all three hooks meet the length requirements and are supported by in-line citations, the main hook attracted my attention more than the other two, but in looking at the references, I found it interesting that General Custer's widow and sister both escaped unharmed during the same fire. I'd suggest as an alternate to the main hook:
  • Otherwise, I think this article is ready to move on. Its a well-done presentation and I enjoyed the opportunity to review it.Bruin2 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bruin2: @Anna Frodesiak: (tossing a ping at Anna so she sees your comments, which are good) I like your hook better than the ones I came up with, I think it's a better wording. Haven't had much practice writing them, hence the 'several options'. The other 'interesting tidbits' I found (the architect also designed the base for the Statue of Liberty, for example) are a bit out of the scope of this particular article. Reventtalk 07:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Glancing closer, the NYT article (ref 6) actually is on the linked page, it just starts in the left column about halfway down. There is a ton of whitespace in that PDF. The link in Ref 8 is actually included in the 'source-specific' citation template used, {{cite gotham}}, not in this article itself. Reventtalk 09:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on February 14[edit]

String quartets (Waterhouse)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

St. Valentin, Kiedrich

Carved pew with writing on justice

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC).



The Goblin Emperor

Created/expanded by Sandstein (talk). Self nominated at 11:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New, long enough and sourced appropriately, including the hook (in which I learned a new literary term). Meets criteria. No dups or impermissible paraphrasing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the unique phrasing in this article is identical to the sources but is not quoted. Examples include "heavy-handed morality, and a too-perfect protagonist" and "cackling overlord". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm open to any suggestions how the phrasing could be improved, but the statements at issue are clearly attributed to the source ("Foz Meadows ... noted that ... it did not personify either as a cackling overlord", "Jared Shurin ... was disappointed that the ... novel [featured] a heavy-handed morality, and a too-perfect protagonist"), so it's not as though we're plagiarizing anybody, right? I don't think that it's useful or desirable to replace any description with synonyms just for the sake of originality, which I always thought isn't exactly what we're all about.  Sandstein  17:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that quotation marks are appropriate for quotations that are a sentence long or more, but for a few (relatively common) words? This would mean that practically every piece of prose on Wikipedia that is faithful to its source's wording such as not to misrepresent it (which should be most of our articles) would be a near-illegible mess of quotation marks, or a WP:QUOTEFARM. That's taking the avoidance of the appearance of plagiarism a bit too far, I think.  Sandstein  22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't agree: the phrasings in question are to my mind uncommon and warrant quoting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Via dei Coronari

Via dei Coronari

Created by Alessandro57 (talk). Self nominated at 10:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg OK for promotion. Long and young enough, no apparent content problems. Hook is interesting enough for a street, I guess. Can't check for copyvio / close paraphrasing because the sources are printed books and in Italian. Note: there still are a few grammar ("the street lost his unity") and formatting issues that should be cleaned up, including some erratic capitalization and a whitespace before every footnote, which should be omitted.  Sandstein  12:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Beirut V - Minet El Hosn

Beirut V electoral district

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 10:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Map is correctly licenced. Shouldn't the article title be "Beirut V - Minet El Hosn electoral district"? Hook is correctly formatted. There is too much information in the lead that is not in the rest of the article. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article and hence unreferenced. I can work out from the content that the hook is probably correct and we have a ref for the fact that the districts changed after the election but nothing about the creation of the district that support the claim it was used only once. Perhaps it needs a section on the creation of the district? Article is well referenced. AGF on foreign language and offline sources. Most of the refs are offline in fact as the links are to Google pages without preview. I detected no copy vios or close paraphrasing. Will be good once the lead is fixed and the hook fact is more explicitly stated in the article in one place. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania

5x expanded by Borsoka (talk). Self nominated at 07:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC).


WrestleMania XXX

Improved to Good Article status by Starship.paint (talk), Antoshi (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 01:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

Top 10 artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Hot 100

Created by Calvin999 (talk). Self nominated at 17:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg. Article is new and it meets the core policies. I did not find copyvios and refs seem sufficient.MPorciusCato (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks.  — ₳aron 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svgArticle is currently at AfD. I know of no reason preventing reinstatement of MPorciusCato's prior approval once the AfD is completed. --Allen3 talk 13:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sara Goldrick-Rab

Photo of Sara Goldrick-Rab

  • Comment: As just the AfC reviewer and wielder of the editing axe, I don't consider myself a major contributor to the article

Moved to mainspace by OkfochushTikabi (talk). Nominated by Czar (talk) at 15:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Back to Backspace and Pillywags Mansion

Created by 23W (talk). Self nominated at 07:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 15[edit]

Robert René Meyer-Sée

Advert for the Futurist exhibition at the Sackville Gallery, 1912.

  • Reviewed: To be done.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Gareth E Kegg (talk), Zigzig20s (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Length, date, hook's ref verified. All non-lede paragraphs have refs; all refs appear to be RS. No apparent close-paraphrasing issues. The nomination includes an image, but the image is not mentioned in the hook, and as I think it's too small to be of real value here, let's not use it when the hook gets promoted. Hook is interesting. The QPQ isn't done yet; Philafrenzy, please ping me when this requirement is cleared. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I will be doing a QPQ soon. I have edited the hook to add "advert pictured". Philafrenzy (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)



Wadham Creek

  • ... that when 4 inches (10 cm) of rain fell in 45 minutes in the watershed of Coal Creek, causing it to flood severely, Wadham Creek (less than a mile away) did not even overflow its banks?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 21:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

Coal Creek (Susquehanna River)

  • ... that when Coal Creek flooded on July 3, 2011, it caused "indescribable damage", but the affected areas did not qualify for federal aid?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 21:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC).


Statue of Robert Peel, Parliament Square

The statue of Sir Robert Peel in Parliament Square

Created by Miyagawa (talk). Self nominated at 19:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. The article only says that it was the third of a series of statues to be placed in the square, which isn't quite the same thing as saying it was the third statue to be placed in the square (what if there was already a statue there?) --Jakob (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've clarified in the paragraph above that there were no statues in the square before those three. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Per the DYK rule (which I personally think is rather silly), the statement that there were no previous statues also has to be directly cited (at the end of the sentence). --Jakob (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the article Parliament Square contradict the hook? Fuebaey (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Not mistaken - I hadn't accounted for George Canning, which by all accounts was the first (and predated the modern square). I'll update the article and place an alt shortly. For now, I've struck the original. Miyagawa (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Alt1: ... that the Statue of Robert Peel (pictured) was the final work by Matthew Noble to be completed? Added alt. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Joseph Chader

  • ... that in 1958 Joseph Chader became the first Armenian government minister in Lebanon?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC).


Sugar Notch Run

  • ... that although Sugar Notch Run is impaired for its entire length, brook trout inhabit it upstream of the Hanover Area Recreation Fields?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 23:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Spring Run

  • ... that although Spring Run is designated as a Coldwater Fishery, it is devoid of trout?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 23:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Battle of Garnett's & Golding's Farm

Improved to Good Article status by Ceradon (talk). Self nominated at 05:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on February 16[edit]

Takenaga incident

Moved to mainspace by Mr. Stradivarius (talk), Snlf1 (talk). Nominated by Mr. Stradivarius (talk) at 14:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Italian cruiser Carlo Alberto

Carlo Alberto at anchor

Improved to Good Article status by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Self nominated at 01:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC).


Italian cruiser Pisa

Pisa off Derna, October 1912

Created by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Self nominated at 00:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC).




Kong Le

  • ALT1:. . .that while his troops were attacking communists, Captain Kong Le was serving as a monk?
  • Reviewed: Emin Xhinovci
  • Editorial Comment: When young idealistic Captain Kong Le seized power in Laos, he believed he could cleanse his national government of corruption and establish Laos as a neutral in the ongoing Cold War. His subsequent experiences bring to mind the old adage about the peacemaker to a dogfight being bitten by both sides. Forced by circumstances to surrender his third party position, and to take sides during the Laotian Civil War, he found that neither military expertise nor spiritual piety could sustain himself and his military/political movement in play.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Þórdís Gísladóttir

  • Reviewed: Bangalore Nagarathnamma
  • Comment: I know its subtle. Have a go at an alt if you like. This is for Women's History Month

Created by Ipigott (talk); Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

National Liberation Council

  • ALT1:... that members of the Ghanaian Police and Armed Forces waited until February 24, 1966—after Kwame Nkrumah had left the country—to capture the government and create the National Liberation Council?
  • Reviewed: Go Set a Watchman
  • Comment: Might as well run this one on February 24, folks, even though it's a 49-year anniversary and not that nice round 5-0. groupuscule (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

5x expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nominated at 12:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC).


MTA Arts & Design

  • ... that the MTA Arts & Design–commissioned "Sky Reflector-Net" is the first skylight built in any underground New York City Subway station since the skylighted City Hall station closed in 1945?
  • ... that upon completion, the MTA Arts & Design–commissioned "Sky Reflector-Net" reflected natural sunlight onto an underground New York City subway platform for the first time in nearly 70 years?
  • ... that in 2014, the MTA Arts & Design commissioned the "Sky Reflector-Net", which when completed shined the first natural sunlight an underground New York City subway platform had seen in nearly 70 years?
  • ... that in 2014, the MTA Arts & Design commissioned the "Sky Reflector-Net", which upon completion was the first time natural sunlight made contact with an underground New York City subway platform in nearly 70 years?
  • Comment: To clarify, the original City Hall station that included "skylights" closed in 1945. The Sky Reflector-Net in the Fulton Building opened in late 2014. There may be a better way to word the hook, any suggestions are welcomed. This is my second DYK nomination ever. I plan to do more and when I get a bit more confident I will give back and review other nominations :)

Created by MusikAnimal (talk). Self nominated at 23:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

  • I've added an alternate wording. To provide further clarification, the word "underground" is not redundant as there are above-ground New York City subway platforms. I think this is a really interesting fact but am having trouble conveying it nicely. I want to make it clear we're saying that this was the first time sunlight hit a subway platform in the entire subway system, not just the IRT Lexington Ave platform that the sun is actually shining on. Thanks in advance for any help! MusikAnimal talk 00:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that completion of the MTA Arts & Design–commissioned "Sky Reflector-Net" marked the first time natural sunlight has shone on any underground New York City subway platform since City Hall station closed in 1945? -- EEng (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    @EEng: Have I missed the mark? Is it too late to promote this now? MusikAnimal talk 18:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed. Be patient, MA. EEng (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have another proposed hook, because technically "the first time natural sunlight has shone on any underground New York City subway platform" is wrong, because there are ventilation shafts in some of the shallower subway stations, and the sun definitely shines through these ventilation shafts (take a ride on one of the numbered lines in Midtown Manhattan and you will see what I am talking about). I will also note that the "Sky Reflector-Net" is not built over any subway platform, but rather in the Fulton Center main building, over a bunch of retail spaces. I think what you mean is intentional skylights. I've reworded it here:
  • Epic Genius (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You are right about the ventilation shafts, I didn't think about that, despite riding the subway daily... so I guess we need to drop some of these other hooks and reword a few articles based on the apparent inaccuracy of this source. After reading the article I knew from my own knowledge that the City Hall station had natural sunlight coming in, so I knew that much was wrong. Wired is generally considered reliable, but clearly off here. I find that a bit innerving considering the factual error could have made it's way to the main page by now.
Anyway, you could shift some words around, but using the term "skylight" would evidently be only truly accurate way to put it, albeit also much less-exciting in a factual sense. I'll try to find something better, but for now I'm scratching the other candidates and moving it as the primary one. Thanks Epicgenius for catching this! MusikAnimal talk 22:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem. The last part of this new hook, the part saying "the skylighted City Hall station" could be reworded. Epic Genius (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Taunton by-election, 1724

  • ... that when two winners were declared for the 1724 Taunton by-election, the High Sheriff of Somerset had to choose which to accept?

Created by Harrias (talk). Self nominated at 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC).


List of women's international cricket hat-tricks

  • ... that all the hat-tricks in women's Twenty20 International cricket have occurred since the last hat-trick in women's Test cricket?

Created by Harrias (talk). Self nominated at 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

  • I count three wikilinks that point to dab pages; this will have to be tidied up. Schwede66 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Good spot, should be sorted now. Harrias talk 15:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Dharma Productions films

Kareena Kapoor has collaborated with Dharma Productions on five films

5x expanded by Krimuk90 (talk). Self nominated at 14:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg x5 expanded, QPQ done, adequately cited. Hook reads a bit vague to me and is currently unreferenced in the article. Also it needs to be an established fact per our policy. Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't directly cited in the list, but a simple counting in the well-sourced "cast" section is enough to prove the claim. Anyway, I am open to any other hook suggestions. -- KRIMUK90  03:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see that, but is this an established fact? Also this is more likely to change in the near future, given Alia Bhatt gets more offers in the coming years. Also Why include Kareena Kapoor when SRK has one more then her? Vensatry (ping) 07:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. I can limit it to just SRK then. -- KRIMUK90  09:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How about ALT1 ... that The Lunchbox, a co-production of Dharma Productions, was the first Indian film to be produced by three foreign producers? Got it from here. Vensatry (ping) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure this is a better hook than the original one? I need to somehow include the fact in the article as well. -- KRIMUK90  02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure of the interestingness of the hook. But unlike the original hook, this claim has been reported by multiple reliable sources. Vensatry (ping) 07:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)



Hughes Bolckow

Created by Esemono (talk). Self nominated at 11:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Wesmaelius mathewesi

  • ... that, when described, the brown lacewing species Wesmaelius mathewesi was the most ancient member of its subfamily?

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 03:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Love and Friendship (film)

Moved to mainspace by JuneGloom07 (talk). Self nominated at 02:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC).


T19 Howitzer Gun Motor Carriage

The T19 HMC at Newport News in 1942

  • ... that the T19 Howitzer Motor Carriage (HMC) (pictured) served as late as the Invasion of southern France (Operation Dragoon) in 1944?

Created by Tomandjerry211 (talk). Self nominated at 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

  • The article needs some categories; in its current state, it looks "unfinished". Schwede66 00:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on February 17[edit]

King Gustav III of Sweden and his Brothers

King Gustav III of Sweden and his Brothers by Alexander Roslin

Created by Hafspajen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk) at 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Eighth Five-Year Plan

Created by Groupuscule (talk). Self nominated at 17:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Det sjungande trädet (opera)

Created by Voceditenore (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Suggest..
ALT1 ... the premiere of Erik Bergman's only full-length opera Det sjungande trädet (The Singing Tree) was delayed for a year because of its complex staging requirements?
Flows a bit better, I think, and is slightly more interesting. 161 characters. The reference for it is the same. Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of the Maya

Improved to Good Article status by Simon Burchell (talk). Self nominated at 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Wow, what a great article! It is well written, extremely comprehensive, well referenced (AGF on offline sources) with what appear to my eye to be high-quality sources, and well illustrated. A random spotcheck did not produce any copyvio concerns. Hook is sourced (ref is offline but Clendinnen 2003 says pretty much the same), QPQ is done. My only concern is that the phrasing is a bit ambiguous: "during the Spanish conquest of what"? will one ask. Also, I urge the author to find alternate hooks, preferably ones that can be combined with an image (perhaps something about the diseases that wrecked the Maya population, or one of the Conquistador leaders), so that it becomes a lead DYK. It would be a pity for such a fine article to get lost among the other submissions for lack of prominence or a catchy hook. Constantine 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Pity I can't find an image of Maya armour, I thought the hook was interesting... Oh well, how about the following:

Santiago Matamoros

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Looks fine, and good to go for ALT1! Constantine 10:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


Aphis pomi

Life stages of the green apple aphid

  • ... that the green apple aphid (pictured) may have ten to fifteen generations in a year?

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 09:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, neutral. Article is well sourced with no detectable copyvio or close paraphrasing. Both hooks are sourced, interesting, and within the character limit. QPQ has been completed. The image is public domain and is used in the article. Whatsmore, it looks very good at this size and I would strongly recommend that the promoter include it when moving this to the prep area. Good to go. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Semmelwrap

  • ... that the launching of the semmelwrap became a viral success on Swedish social media?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Ilia Koshevoy

Created by JudoonCyclist (talk). Self nominated at 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC).


UKIP: The First 100 Days

5x expanded by The Almightey Drill (talk), This is Paul (talk). Nominated by The Almightey Drill (talk) at 18:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Snowden (film)

Moved to mainspace by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self nominated at 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Joy (film)

  • ... that currently in-production Joy is about the real-life story of inventor and entrepreneur, Joy Mangano?

Moved to mainspace by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self nominated at 16:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Marnie the Dog

  • ... that Marnie, a Shih Tzu dog, has received over one million Instagram followers from photos taken by her owner?
  • Reviewed: I have less than 5 DYK credits, so I'm exempt from the QPQ requirement.

Created by Esquivalience (talk). Self nominated at 03:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Pippa Cross

  • ... that Pippa Cross was inspired to enter the film and television industry after helping to organise a BAFTA Awards ceremony?

Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Ananda Pyissi

Created by Hybernator (talk). Self nominated at 03:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC).


Articles created/expanded on February 18[edit]

Edmund Marion Ashe

Created by Mchuedem (talk). Self nominated at 20:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Comment: I have less than 5 DYK nominations and am exempt from the reviewing criteria.Mchuedem (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Brachycaudus helichrysi, Brachycaudus cardui

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC).

Regīna Ezera

  • ... that Latvian writer Regīna Ezera suffered financially as a result of the fall of communism in her country?
  • ALT1:... have a go!
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Morrison
  • Comment: another for Women's History Month

Created by Ipigott (talk), Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC).




Freddy Galvis

Galvis before a game in 2013

5x expanded by Go Phightins! (talk). Self nominated at 02:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

  • @Go Phightins!:, I like the idea of the hook. Perhaps make it about the fact that he was noticed by scouts and subsequently signed by the Phillies at the age of 16. Otherwise, it's ready to go. Length is good, images meet the guidelines, etc. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, how about:

Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT 1. Galvis was some very exceptional talent for his age I must say. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg @Sportsguy17: this review needs more than a check of the hook, article length, and image. You should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been covered. Yoninah (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg. Making sure that this DYK nomination met the DYK criterion is a given. But just for clarity's sake, it meets all five of the criterion and is all good to go. Sportsguy17 (TC) 23:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on February 19[edit]

Allegory of Fortune

Allegory of Fortune, painted by Salvator Rosa

Created by Sagaciousphil (talk), Hafspajen (talk). Nominated by Mandarax (talk) at 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Date and length hook OK. AGF on offline source. No close para, QPQ done, picture licence fine. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Disappearance of Leah Roberts

  • ALT1:... that before Leah Roberts disappeared, she drove from Durham, North Carolina, to the Northern Cascades in Washington, where her wrecked car was found 15 years ago today?
  • Reviewed: Adhyatma Upanishad
  • Comment: Another real-life unsolved mystery. Both hooks are meant to be run on March 18, as noted the 15-year anniversary of when her wrecked and abandoned car was found. If desired I can adjust or create hooks to run on March 9 (anniversary of the day she left Durham) or March 13 (last seen in the Bellingham area that day), although the 18th is the day this went from a standard missing-persons case into a real headscratcher. (I also have a little bit more work to do, although if someone wants to review it now so as to make sure it's in the pipeline for the desired date, let me know so I can make sure it's up to snuff. More hooks could also be possible.

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self nominated at 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary

Expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Vontimitta Kodandarama Swamy Temple

Carvings of deities on the pillars of the mantapam in the Vontimitta Kodandarama Swamy Temple

Created by Varmapak (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 06:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC).


Kaushitaki Upanishad

  • ... that the Kaushitaki Upanishad teaches that knowledge should be one's pursuit, not religious rituals?
  • Comment: This is the first nomination for one of Ms Sarah Welch's articles.

5x expanded by Ms Sarah Welch (talk). Nominated by Redtigerxyz (talk) at 19:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Tracy Park

Tracy Park, south facade

ALT1 ... that Tracy Park (pictured) is thought to have inspired Anna Sewell when she wrote Black Beauty?

5x expanded by Ritchie333 (talk), Giano (talk), Eric Corbett (talk). Nominated by MelanieN (talk) at 00:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC).

Symbol voting keep.svg Substantial article on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, added image, would prefer infobox (you know that it can have the image in flexible size?). Both hooks are fine and sources, I prefer the original, - thanks to all involved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

18F

People attending the 18F demonstration

  • ... that 400,000 Argentines attended the 18F demonstration (pictured) despite torrential rain?

Created by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 18:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

  • I rewrote the hook to better highlight the hook-worthy aspect. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg The word "18F" is not used in either of the sources. I understand that it refers to 18th February, but I think you need a source which mentions the name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done, I added a new source that mentions the name. The use of the number of the day and the first character of the month is a common naming convention for demonstrations in Argentina, both those that oppose the government and those sponsored by it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1... that 400,000 Argentines attended the 18F demonstration (pictured) to protest over the death of Alberto Nisman despite torrential rain?

I propose another hook, as a related article that seems eligible for DYK has been created as well, by ScottyNolan Cambalachero (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Helen Papashvily

  • ... that Helen Papashvily's story called Anything can Happen explained that we should be tolerant of those who are not born in our country?
  • ALT1:... have a go
  • Reviewed: just a mo.
  • Comment: This is a new article by a new editor. It seems to have been created in a sandbox that was in article space until Feb 19. Nominally this may be out of date but the evidence seens to suggest that this was not really in article space until very recently. Hope you agree. This is for Women's History Month

Created by Pencilcity (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC).


Stanley Hotel, Nairobi

The Stanley Hotel in 1903

Created by Gregory aldous (talk), Deunanknute (talk), Ritchie333 (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

  • When it said "the Queen" I thought the link would be to Elton John. I might add that the image of Hemingway recovering from dysentery isn't one I feel we should inflict on MP readers. EEng (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Good point. EEng (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The article is new, long enough and was nominated within the time limit. It is neutral and has in-line citations. The image meets all requirements. All 3 hooks are within the character limit, accurate, cited, neutral and do not have negative aspects about people (Living or not). In my opinion, the base hook is more interesting than the other two. I haven't yet verified whether a QPQ is required or whether it has already been done. I reviewed online sources for close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism and found no issues. The DYK is good to go. Bruin2 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies. I initially misunderstood the instructions and thought that a separate QPQ was required from each listed author, whereas it is only needed for the nominator. Bruin2 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries! Any extra QPQs can clear the perennial backlog anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Sant'Ambrogio della Massima

5x expanded by Nikkimaria (talk). Self nominated at 18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Expanded, long enough, article well-cited, & QPQ check. The three hooks are sourced, but the proposed hook as well as most quotes in the article are not properly cited in the article. Furthermore, the quote in the proposed hook comes from the sources' authors, not a first-hand source (eg. a contemporary and/or someone involved with the convent). I don't know of the relevant WP policy, but it's generally in bad taste to use quotes in writing like that and quotes should usually include attribution in the prose (see Wikipedia:Quotations and MOS:QUOTE). The Salon article may be trying to sensationalize the subject. Furthermore, one of the DYK supplementary guidelines (D7) states: "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete...Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive." This article doesn't really say anything about the church itself (there's history and etymology)...where exactly is it located (be more specific than Rome; could use an infobox)? What goes on there today? The end of the history section states that it was turned into a "a missionary college" in 1861. So is it a functioning church for the public? A religious college? Both?
Regarding the hooks...the proposed hook is not appropriate for the above reasoning. ALT2 is problematic because the convent previously existed from 353 until about 1800-10 (Napoleonic wars) and so it's not accurate to call her a founder without additional qualifiers, plus the source is offline, making it difficult to verify; ALT1 one is the best option. AHeneen (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello AHeneen. I have added more content to the article to address your concerns about completeness, though it is important to note that a DYK article is not expected to be comprehensive. I've added in-text attribution for the quote used in proposed hook; all quotes are appropriately cited. I have also added clarification to ALT2 that she was a founding abbess of the restored convent; the use of offline sources is not a problem, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Alt2. No the article doesn't need to be complete, but, as pointed out, it should be complete as far as no significant content omision (before your edit, there wasn't really anything about it today). Anyways, that's fixed. And offline sources are no problem, but I meant that it was difficult to verify the DYK hook. I've done a web search to verify the Alt2 hook and think it's the best of the three hooks. AHeneen (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Forces Armee Neutraliste

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of Louviers
  • Editorial Comment: Wars are generally two-sided affairs. However, Forces Armee Neutraliste became a third side in the Laotian Civil War. Led by a charismatic captain, and defeated in their attempt to purge corruption from the Royal Lao Government, they were eventually riven by dissension, assassination, and infighting as they took sides in the war of Royalists versus Communists. Note: Definitely up for suggested ALTs.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 17:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC).



Calectasia grandiflora

Calectasia grandiflora

Created by Gderrin (talk), Casliber (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 13:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length okay (1546 characters); hook cited inline, interesting and sources verify; created yesterday. Image good to go. COPYVIO unlikely @Gderrin, Casliber: If I may suggest something though, can you please add and cite that it flowers in spring in the body of the article rather than just the lede, in accordance with MOS:LEDE. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 16:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Calectasia cyanea

Calectasia cyanea

Created by Gderrin (talk), Casliber (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 12:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg 2444 B. Park part verified by online reference. New veried. Inline citation for "star of Bethlehem". Probably it could be better for a Christmas appearance. Also, IMO the hook can be made more interesting, if "restricted distribution in the Torndirrup National Park and Albany regions of the South West Botanical Province" (and no other place on Earth) can be capitalised. I strongly recommend the pictured can be removed from the hook. Redtigerxyz Talk 07:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on February 20[edit]

La Nymphe surprise

La Nymphe surprise

  • ... that Manet considered La Nymphe surprise (pictured) to be one of his most important paintings?

Created by Hafspajen (talk). Nominated by Mandarax (talk) at 08:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg New enough, long enough, well sourced. All good--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Jackyd101: this review needs more details. Specifically, it needs to cover copyvio, hook accuracy, image license, etc. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 13:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any problem with the image. Image is a featured picture . Any problems would have been spotted imediately there. Hafspajen (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg The hook is accurate (says so in the lead, supported here), the images are by artists who died in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, thus obviously out of copyright and I did do a random google check for copyright and didn't find anything. I wouldn't have said this was OK otherwise - Having check it over I just copy and pasted the review I usually use when doing a QPQ. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Adventure Time (miniseries)

Created by Mr. Gustafson (talk), Gen. Quon (talk), 23W (talk). Nominated by 23W (talk) at 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

Serpens-Aquila Rift

The Herschel view of the Serpens-Aquila Rift

Created by OtterAM (talk). Self nominated at 19:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC).


Sharad Chauhan, S.K. Bagga, Chaudhary Fateh Singh, Jitender Singh Tomar, Sandeep Kumar (politician), Mahinder Yadav, Asim Ahmed Khan

5x expanded by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Events of March 23, 1965

Created/expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nominated at 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

Dragonmead

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (), Yunshui (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () 11:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) at 10:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

<