Template talk:Did you know

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

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


List of DYK Hooks by Date
Date # of Hooks # Verified
June 6 1
June 7 1
June 12 2 2
June 15 1
June 16 1
June 17 2
June 18 1
June 19 1
June 20 3
June 22 1
June 23 3
June 24 1
June 25 1 1
June 26 2
June 27 4 1
June 28 1
June 29 3
June 30 2 1
July 1 2
July 2 4
July 3 1
July 4 1 1
July 5 1
July 6 10 2
July 7 6 3
July 8 1
July 10 1
July 11 4
July 12 5 1
July 13 4 1
July 15 9 2
July 16 6 2
July 17 7 4
July 18 7
July 19 4 1
July 20 7
July 21 8 3
July 22 9 1
July 23 9 3
July 24 6 1
July 25 17 6
July 26 8 3
July 27 7 5
July 28 14 2
July 29 6
July 30 2
Total 197 46
Last updated 05:54, July 30, 2014 (UTC)
Current time is 06:03, July 30, 2014 UTC (purge)

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

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

To nominate an article[edit]

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

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

Write the nomination.

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

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

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

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

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]


This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several days until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).

Where is my hook?[edit]

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

  • Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
  • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue[edit]

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there is usually a link to it in the credits section).
    • View the edit history for that page
    • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
    • Leave a comment explaining that the hook was removed from the queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
    • If the day title for the section that contained the hook has been removed from this page, restore that section.
  • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.
  • Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name[edit]

  • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on June 6[edit]

Paano Ang Puso Ko?

Created by 001Jrm (talk). Self nominated at 06:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I do not see any plagiarism, copyright infringement, or close paraphrasing. The image follow fair use guidelines. Article was created on time. However, the article is only 1335 characters, and 1500 needed to go on the Main Page. Lists such as cast listings and awards do not count toward the character count. Also, the only sources I see here are IMDB and the movie itself. The movie is a reliable primary source about itself. IMBD I know is controversial - can someone with more experience help me out here on when IMDB is acceptable and when it is not?
This aside, the article needs coverage from reliable sources independent from the subject - what makes this movie notable? Is there any critical analysis of it? What was the commercial reception? As it stands, this article needs a LOT of work. It would be nice to see it brought up to standard as we need a lot more non-Western oriented topics.--¿3family6 contribs 02:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I didn't know that new pages have to have at least 1500 characters, and so I already added more info. (thanks for telling me that as well) Philippines is one of the countries to have limited resources, though I did get old newspapers (thanks to google) to use for the critical and commercial reception. :) 001Jrm (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Much better now! Just FYI, 1500 characters isn't required for ALL new articles, but it is a good benchmark to avoid deletion, and 1500 IS required for DYK. I hope that clarifies things. My only hesitation with promoting this now are the IMBD sources - some IMBD content is staff-generated, some user-generated, and some user-generated and reviewed by staff. I don't know enough about IMBD to know one way or the other. If you can get that info somewhere else, it might be best. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for someone with more experience with IMBD to weigh in here.--¿3family6 contribs 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ 3family6. The answers to your question about the authority of IMDb are here and here. Broadly speaking, they have contributors just as WP does, but at IMDb all contributor input is vetted before publication, and contributors with a record of unreliability get more closely scrutinised than the rest or might be banned. IMO it's probably the best and most reliable resource for movie credits, second only to the credits on DVDs. I fear that WP might be a little out of date on the subject of IMDb as a source though - so although I think it's a valid source for movie credits, you might still get hassle in a DYK nom if you use it as refs. I should add that IMDb does have public comments/opinions sections at the bottom of some pages, and of course those sections cannot be used as sources. I think that on IMDb if you can't edit it, then that bit has been staff-vetted, and in a section where you can add an opinion, that bit is not staff-vetted. --Storye book (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
For what IMDb is being used for in this article, I see no problem with it. The only reason I questioned it above was because I wasn't sure of what the guidelines for Wikipedia are regarding its use. It's up to you, 001Jrm.--¿3family6 contribs 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. I'll try to look for other sources other than IMDB, but it will take a long time. 001Jrm (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
001Jrm, any progress on this or shall we close the nomination? Love, Bad-ass DYK Enforcer Belle (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm also not sure. I'm actually waiting for others to comment here since, just like what we discussed before, the only minor issue here is the IMDB sourcing. Though, one Wikipedian (¿3family6) says it's not a problem. Thanks for commenting :) 001Jrm (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 7[edit]

Pauline Bennett

  • Comment: Bennett will be celebrating her fiftieth birthday in the house, thus could this be mainpaged on her birthday.

Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 17:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Symbol confirmed.svg Length, history and reference verified. Have we missed her birthday? Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg (edit conflict) Article was new enough when nominated. Article is long enough. Article appears to be within policy. Hook meets length requirement (101 characters). The problem is that there's no evidence that the DNA remix of Shocked charted (versus the original song). The fact Bennett was in the song is easily found online but isn't reliably sourced in the article, either. Editor provided no evidence of QPQ. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea when her birthday is; it would appear we have missed it, but I can't find any evidence to suggest that she has celebrated it. As for the DNA remix, the source says that only the DNA remix was released as a single (which was the only mix to feature Bennett) and The Official Charts Company attributes the chart entry to "Kylie Minogue ft. Jazzi P". QPQ done.--Launchballer 09:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, the "Shocked" remix is sourced to a Kylie Minogue fan site (FN3: KylieUnlimited), and thus not sufficiently reliable; you'll need to find a reliable source for this. Furthermore, the one Official Charts Company source you do have (FN4) does not mention Jazzi P (is it "Jazzy" or "Jazzi"?) as an artist on "Shocked"; it's credited solely to Minogue. If there is another Official Charts page with an entry that does mention Pauline under her stage name, you'll need to source it in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the "Shocked" remix, but I can't find a consensus as to whether it is "Jazzy P" or "Jazzi P" thus I am loathed to include it for fear of bias. I am considering writing a new section giving a balanced argument between the two names. Or would it be removed as unencyclopedic?--Launchballer 13:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea whether Discogs is a reliable source (very possibly not), but this page gives no fewer than five variants of her name. Writing an entire section based on variant spellings strikes me as WP:UNDUE; if you just mention in a single sentence that there are a number of variant spellings including Jazzi P and Jazzy P (and cite a couple of sources for each) that should be sufficient. A 1991 source reviewing the Minogue single that mentions Bennett might be nice, and give an idea of contemporaneous credits. The use of the BB episode to source that the Minogue single wasn't originally going to be released strikes me as dubious; I'd want a "time" during the episode for anything that specific. I'm still waiting for an Official Charts source that includes the "ft. Jazzi P" part, since the one source you give from them does not mention a featured artist. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Discogs anyone can edit, so no, it's not a reliable source and honestly I'm surprised you don't know that. No Official Charts source exists that includes the "ft. Jazzi P" bit, and I can't find any reviews which mention Jazzy P. I don't know the time, but I think Bennett said it before she went into the house.--Launchballer 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Launchballer, what is going on with this nomination? Archaeologists will soon be uncovering the remains of the Big Brother House which believed to have had some cultural significance back in the 20th century, so it might be a good time to get this on the main page (That's a joke about how long this nomination has been open; just mentioning that to save anybody a trip out to see the dig) Belle (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 12[edit]

Purabá de Santa Bárbara

Neighborhood in Purabá de Santa Bárbara

Created by Mvblair (talk). Self nominated at 18:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Prose 3636B (565 words), created 12 June (2 days before nomination), neutral and well-sourced. Sources are in Spanish, so I AGF that they they have been used accurately without copyvio or close paraphrasing. The only image used is CCS3-licensed by the creator of the article.
    The hook fact is sourced, but the link is to a website which currently fails to load and isn't in the internet archive.
    I suggest a slight tweak to the hook, to clarify where the district is located ("Purabá de Santa Bárbara district in Costa Rica) ... but the question for me that while the hook fact appears mildly interesting, it doesn't say whether growing sugar cane at this altitude is unique to this district (which would be very hooky), or common in Costa Rica (in which case it is less hooky).
    Can the nominator please clarify this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, BrownHairedGirl. I checked the link and it appears to be working at the moment. Growing sugarcane at that altitude is unique to Costa Rica, but more unique to the, well, altitude. I'm not an expert in agriculture, but I've read that it's mostly grown at sea-level or just a few feet above (I tweaked the hook to hopefully reflect that). Do you think another hook might be better? Perhaps something like "... despite the twenty-four wells and springs in the area, Purabá de Santa Bárbara still has water delivery problems?" Mvblair (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Mvblair, thanks for the reply. The link still fails to load, with a message about data corrupted in transmission. Maybe the internet isn't so global after all :(
    Anyway, I am happy to AGF on the refs. As to the hook, water delivery problems seem very weak. Heck, even here in wealthy Ireland (widely mocked as a very rainy place), significant parts of the country have water supply problems. So that's not really front page news.
    I reckon that the sugar cane thing is the one to go for, so long as you don't appear to be claiming that Santa Bárbara is totally unique; instead, why not use it to illustrate your point that Costa Rica tends to grow it at high altitude, and this is an extreme case. Can you expand the article a little to make that point? If so, we got a hook :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl, good suggestions. Let me see if I can rustle up a source or two and expand that section of the article! Mvblair (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your help with the hook,

BrownHairedGirl; however, I'm going to submit an alternative hook. It is unusual for sugarcane to be grown above 1,000 meters, but from what I'm reading, it is still done in many places. How about the following? I think it provides more general interest, in any event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvblair (talkcontribs) 02:50, 26 June 2014

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Mvblair, I think that the hook would be OK if it was supported by the reference. The source is in Spanish and I don't read Spanish, so I used Google Translate. The translated version is slightly garbled:
From when I was a child I have few memories almost did not have to work, because I had the opportunity to study, but if I had to help my dad with the land where he used to plant tomatoes and bananas. I enjoyed my childhood of playing make mills in a ditch with the branches of the banana tree, also my dad made us rag dolls and wooden.
... but I don't see it saying anything about the ubiquity of sugarcane, and it refers only to one child making a play sugar mill (rather than this being a common practice). Please correct me if I am being misled by a poor translation, but as it stands I think that the hook is unsupported by the source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The translation is up to the usual machine standard, but you are right that it doesn't mention anything about the ubiquity of sugarmills (that whole paragraph in the article is a bit dodgy). Belle (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • this link says that the district is "Set on the flanks of the impressive Barva Volcano". Great hook but it's part of a sales hype. Can we get a better (maybe Spanish-language) citation for the volcano location? --Storye book (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This says it extends from the foothills of the Barva Massif at 2.400m above sea level down to 1.000m above sea level at San Juan. Not sure that is that hooky for non-geologists (it would be different if it was hidden in the crater and was only accessible by swimming through a gas-filled cave or by ninjas with grappling hooks) Belle (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Belle. I have added the ALT2 hook, extra information and citations into the article. --Storye book (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that the highest part of Purabá de Santa Bárbara (neighborhood pictured) is in the foothills of Barva Volcano? --Storye book (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Citations #8 and #9 for ALT2. Note: the image shows an unknown part of the area, i.e. not necessarily the highest part - so you may wish to remove the image. Pinging BrownHairedGirl in case you would like to review the new hook?. --Storye book (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT2, and weigh in on image question. (BrownHairedGirl has not returned.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry. I think that I am kinda burnt out on this article, and that is better if I leave it to someone else to take it from here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg ALT2 is good to go. The ALT2 hook fact is supported by footnote 8, supplemented by footnote 9. I did a bit of rewording and added some additional footnote callouts to make the sourcing clear. Also, I added links (in the article and the hook) to Barva Volcano. AGF on the rest of the review -- trusting BHG's work.
Since the image is stated to be a neighborhood (barrio in Spanish), I added that word to the "pictured" item in the hook. That addition overcomes the issue of location, making the image OK for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 15[edit]

Foreign policy of Narendra Modi

Created by Lihaas (talk), Dharmadhyaksha (talk). Nominated at 08:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Dull hook, unless there's some context we're not getting (i.e., the king and PM having a history of hating India and/or Modi, or no previous Indian PM making their first foreign visit to Bhutan). Or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Then what do you suggest? that all SAARC members came for his inauguration as a first? Better to suggest something vs. complainingLihaas (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well ... that's a start. If you wrote the article, you are probably better positioned to propose a newer, catchier hook than me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that all member states of the regional body SAARC attended the inauguration of Narendra Modi marking his foreign policy priorities....? Lihaas (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Lihaas, the ALT1 hook is problematic for a number of reasons: it doesn't read well, the article doesn't say "all member states" of SAARC, and there's nothing in the article to connect them (and SAARC) explicitly to his foreign policy except an unsourced statement in the intro. The article also needs copyediting, and there are many bare urls in the sourcing that need fixing. The article was nominated when still new, and is long enough. I have not checked for neutrality or close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lihaas: If the article is edited further to include Modi's upcoming Nepal visit, there are some possible hooks in it. Check this [1], [2]. I will edit it if I get time tomm. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Lihaas: @Schwede66: @Daniel Case: @BlueMoonset: Per above comment, I have now edited the article to include info about Nepal. Have done copyediting and fixed bare urls issue. Have following alternatives proposed. In case in due course the hook is being promoted post Modi's scheduled Nepal visit on 3-4th Aug, we can convert the tense in the hook and the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that following his foreign policies, Narendra Modi is set for an official visit to Nepal, 17 years post the previous Indian Prime Minister's visit?
ALT3 ... that following his foreign policies, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to visit Nepal and become the first foreign leader to address the Parliament of Nepal?

Articles created/expanded on June 16[edit]



  • ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with fearsome rites which prescribed killing a victim?

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 13:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, the hook is cited/short enough/interesting, but a little confusing. I think it can be written better grammatically. QPQ Done. Article conforms to Wikipedia policy. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I replaced "prescribed to kill a victim" with "prescribed killing a victim". MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Mandarax. User:Jeremy112233, can you please check Mandarax's improved wording.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
What meaning of "prescribe" is being used here? The killing of the victim is not mandated by the rites. Also the use of "fearsome" is obviously used as a substitute for the "fearful" of the source which strikes me as an adjectival flourish rather than an attempt to convey any real information. Belle (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Belle, taking a cue from your copyedit. ALT ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites by which the adept can cause the target to be killed? --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Jeremy112233, is the ALT acceptable?Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The term "adept" is confusing in this sense. Something simpler like "rites, through which an individual can cause their target", in order for most readers to understand what you are trying to convey. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, User:Jeremy112233. ALT2 ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites, through which an individual can cause their target to be killed?--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg That fixed it, I think the article is good to go now. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 16:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulled ALT2 from prep. Wikipedia's MP can't be saying that certain rites actually kill people (unless they actually do, I suppose). Maybe something like

ALT3 ... that the rites of Heramba (pictured) purport to allow their adepts to inflict delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death?

-- but I'm not comfortable concocting a new hook on the fly. (I see adept was rejected earlier, but it's exactly the right word in this context. In any event the hook that was promoted certainly is inappropriate.) EEng (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

EEng, IMHO "purport" is editorizing. The reference uses the "can" tone. Also the rites of Heramba suggests "all" rites, also they are only connected to Heramba. There are six Tantric abhicara rituals, not solely associated with this deity; there are other deities. So I suggest "associate". Six rituals, each for a different purpose, one of them is murder. So I had "prescribe" in the original hook. These rituals are recommended as a recipe for murder; we do not comment if they work or not. I also agree that the simpler word "individual" is fit for DYK; but the article should have "adept", a term which confuse readers.
ALT4 ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites, which are recommended so that an individual can cause their target to be killed?

EEng, I am sure you can suggest something better than ALT4. :) Redtigerxyz Talk 14:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not setting myself up as the person who can compose the best hook all the time. Though I'm happy to contribute what I can along those lines, I'm primarily interested in keeping bad hooks from reaching the main page. Purport is exactly the right word -- it allows description of a claim, with an implication of skepticism. If the source uses a can tone, then it's either a primary source which really believes the claim, and so probably isn't a source we should be using, or it's a secondary source which speaks from the point of view of the belief system it's describing, knowing that the reader will understand that it (the source) it doing that for descriptive convenience, and isn't attesting to the truth of the belief (and this latter, BTW, is the tone adopted in the article).

Not sure I understand the issue with the other deities and so on, but perhaps one of these satisfies that concern:

ALT5 ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites by which, it is believed, one may inflict delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death?

ALT6 ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites by which, their adepts believe, one can inflict delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death?

The bad stuff other than death I added because that's what the article says, but if for some reason you want to just leave it at death that's certainly fine with me. EEng (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
EEng, ALT5 is the most neutral, accurate and hooky IMO but possibly "on his victim" will make it clearer. ALT7 ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites by which, it is believed, one may inflict delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death on his victim? --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"one ... his" is a little unusual. How about

ALT8 ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites by which, it is believed, one may inflict delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death on a victim? EEng (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW "it is believed" can sometimes be problematic when it's a claim like "largest ice cream cone ever", but here it's clear it's something that's believed by... well, by whoever it is that believes it. EEng (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Good with ALT8. Striking all other ALTs to avoid confusion. EEng, thanks for hook. Do we need the green tick again or we are good to go?Redtigerxyz Talk 04:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to have The Green One at bottom. Here... I'll have my slave do it...

Symbol confirmed.svg Ta DA! 05:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT8 to prep2. Oh, wait... I'm changing "it is believed" to "some believe" -- I hope that's OK. EEng (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have been uncomfortable with this hook and its several variations for some time. Last night I altered it to remove the "it is believed" phrase which I think had obvious problems, but I still felt uneasy. Today I went back the queue, saw this hook again, and decided it still had serious problems, which I attempted to rectify on the fly with the following:
  • (ALT9): ... that the deity Heramba, protector of the weak, is associated with rites for inflicting harm on one's enemies?
- Redtigerxyz quickly reverted back to the previous hook, so there was little choice but to pull the nomination back here for further discussion.
My concern with the original hook selected is that it may give a highly misleading and prejudicial impression to the reader. The reader is introduced to the topic with a reference to "rites [which] may inflict delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death on a victim". In the first paragraph in the article, he then reads that the associated deity "is popular in Nepal". Later, a section called "worship" reinforces the impression that Heramba is associated primarily with vengeance against one's enemies.
This bothers me a great deal because it inevitably leaves the impression that a large chunk of the Nepalese population spends its time muttering imprecations against their "enemies" in the temple. It also arguably presents Hinduism itself in a negative light. I would describe these as exceptional ideas requiring exceptional sources, but the article clearly doesn't contain them. What the sources do say is that Heramba is seen as a "protector of the weak" and I think it highly likely that this is the quality most appreciated by worshippers. We need to be very careful on Wikipedia not to inadvertently disparage or stereotype other peoples or their cultural practices. So I remain opposed to the original hook, and stand behind my proposed ALT. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I might add that I think the article could also use a tweak or two. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for Pete's sake! (Note: Not intended as blasphemy -- see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Abuse_by_User:EEng) For that matter maybe we shouldn't imply that people in Nepal believe that the way to protect the weak is to inflict harm on people. By this reasoning we can't have a hook that says, "DYK, that the God of the Old Testement describes himself as 'a jealous God'" (after appropriate wrangling over whether the G is capitalized and whether himself should be himself/herself/itself, of course). We are entitled to rely that the reader's native shrewdness will allow him (or her) to understand that the hook highlights only a single aspect of a complex belief system -- we only get 200 characters, remember, so it's kind of a Holy Twitter.

As to what proportion of the population believes this or that, I tried to address that with ALT6 above, and note my comments here

I think there's a slight chance we'll get pushback for "it is believed" which is why I changed it [to "some believe"], but no big deal either way
Yes, once again my crystal ball proves prescient! (Note: Not intended as an admission that I practice conjuring, soothsaying, or other darks arts.) EEng (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) User:Gatoclass, The new hook mixes two traditions: the heterodox Tantra and the orthodox Brahmanical Hinduism. "Protector of the weak" is from the the latter and inflict harm from the former. He is an important Tantric deity; besides his mainstream worship so I don't think it is UNDUE to focus on one of the facets of a complex deity. Also, how does Hinduism become negative if adherents pray for destruction of enemies? In many ancient cultures, warriors go to the gods for destruction of foes; Athens prays to Athena; Troy to Apollo; Buddhists approach Mahakala; Hindus pray to warrior/Tantric deities like Kali, Bhairava, Durga, Heramba. I also do not understand how "This form is particularly popular in Nepal" translates into "it inevitably leaves the impression that a large chunk of the Nepalese population spends its time muttering imprecations against their "enemies" in the temple." Anyways, I am adding a hook from the mainstream tradition:
ALT10 ... that the god Heramba (pictured), protector of the weak, is worshipped for the destruction of one's enemies and gaining fearlessness to face them?
--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What improvements in the article are needed? Redtigerxyz Talk 06:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that when you say something like Heramba "is worshipped for the destruction of one's enemies and gaining fearlessness to face them" you are implying that is all, or mainly what he is worshipped for, when we don't have sufficient evidence for that. When you suggest that an entire cultural group is regularly worshipping a deity "for the destruction of [their] enemies" that is clearly an inappropriate impression to leave, unless you have impeccable sources to demonstrate it. So I don't think this is an appropriate ALT either. Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, what about ALT6 (or maybe ALT3, about which there was some concern I didn't grasp)? EEng (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Gatoclass, I do share your concern to some extent. If we offend the wrong people we may all find ourselves the victims of delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death -- and then who will watch over DYK? However, if we're lucky all we'll get is the delusions, which won't be a problem since many delusional people function quite well at DYK.
(edit conflict) Gatoclass, I still don't get what the problem is. The ref detailing the thirty-two forms of Ganesha clearly states that he is worshipped for this very purpose. Have added another ref on the deity Ganesha. What is offensive about the "destruction of foes"? Redtigerxyz Talk 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Concurring with EEng, ALT6 seems to address your all concern, when we explicitly say adept. ALT6 ... that Heramba (pictured) is associated with rites by which, their adepts believe, one can inflict delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death?Redtigerxyz Talk 07:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing that never ceases to amaze me at DYK is how passionately some reviewers will argue over every nuance of meaning regarding an utterly trivial matter, but when it comes to potential slurs upon an entire ethnic or religious group (unless of course it is one's own), suddenly any instance of sloppy or misleading wording is met with indifference. My own view is that such statements should be policed at least as rigorously as statements pertaining to BLPs if not more so. Your example above Eeng is not very good BTW, a closer one might be something like: "did you know the Christian God commanded that blasphemers be burned alive?". Technically that may be an accurate statement (Leviticus, IIRC) but I think you'll agree it completely misrepresents Christianity. Even so, it would not be so much of an issue on en.wiki where most users would recognize its inappropriateness, but what if a hook of that nature appeared on the wiki of another language whose users knew nothing of Christianity? That's the situation we are in here. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you're underestimating our readers. Your logic implies a hook can't offer a glimpse of anything rated PG or higher unless "the whole story" can be comprehended within the 200-character straitjacket. The article should place this one aspect in a balanced context, and since almost no reader (except those already familiar with the subject) will have any idea what belief system is even being referred to, until he clicks through to the article, there's no damage done by the hook even under your worst-case scenario for our readers' capacity to misunderstand. EEng (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I can understand that Heramba's Tantric afflictions may be comfortable to all; but what is wrong with "destruction of foes" part, a very positive trait in Hinduism?--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Because for all I know, it is similar to the Leviticus example I gave above. Do we know how common it is for worshippers of Heramba to supplicate for "destruction of foes"? Or do they just enter the temple on a day-to-day basis simply to worship their chosen deity like most other believers? Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Gatoclass, Please do not compare Hinduism with Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion. They are poles apart. There are deities related to specific purposes in Hinduism. Heramba will be worshipped like any normal Hindu deity, on a day-to-day basis; but when a devotee wants the "destruction of foes"; the deity is specially specifically propitiated. Another example, Shashthi is the goddess of childbirth; she will be worshipped everyday; her temples would not be abandoned; but the specific purpose of her worship is to get children or for protection of the newborn. So when there is a need for children, she will be approached; not a Ganesha or Heramba.

ALT11 ... that the god Heramba (pictured), protector of the weak, is recommended to be worshipped for the destruction of one's enemies? Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that still lays undue emphasis on one aspect. And why this insistence on the "destruction of enemies" phrase anyway? What is wrong with the simple "harm" I proposed, which covers all bases not just "destruction"? Gatoclass (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Gatoclass, let's go with ALT9 and end this. ALT9 "... that the deity Heramba (pictured), protector of the weak, is associated with rites for inflicting harm on one's enemies?" Redtigerxyz Talk 10:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Redtigerxyz :) I will re-promote shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I might make a tweak or two to the article before re-promoting, but it will have to wait until tomorrow now as I am about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Redtigerxyz: I've made some tweaks to the article. If you have no objections to them, this nom is ready for promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Gatoclass, just removed self-confidence, as not in ref. Everything else is good. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
AUS DER TIEFEN RUFE ICH, HERR, ZU DIR! Not yelling, but God is far from DYK, as well all know. Deliver us from these depths, O Lord, by putting here a green tick for ALT9! But who, O Lord, who amongst Thy servants is worthy to place such a tick, since all have now had a hand in tweaking the article and/or the hooks? EEng (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I can still verify the hook, utilizing one of my special administrators' abhichara. Just kidding. But actually, I can still verify the hook since my changes only amount to copyediting, which is allowed under the rules. However, I haven't done so yet since I want a little more time to think about this nom. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
GC? EEng (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
GC? EEng (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this nom, just haven't found time to get back to it yet. I don't like the change Redtigerxyz made but haven't thought of an alternative wording yet. The problem with some of these noms of Red's is that they are based on very flimsy sourcing which doesn't necessarily present a full and balanced picture of the practices of worshippers and we need to be careful not to over emphasize fringe practices. I have actually been considering a trip into town to visit the city library which may have some more info, or perhaps my local university library, but I have a lot to do off-wiki right now so if I make the effort it probably won't be for some time yet. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 17[edit]

Hawksmoor (restaurant), Ginger Pig

The Hawksmoor full breakfast

  • Reviewed: Great British Meal
  • Comment: I started the Ginger Pig article to eliminate the red link but, as its name makes an interesting hook (longhorn pigs!?), it would be good to make this a double DYK. The picture is provisional - I need to look back through my own photos as I have eaten there myself.

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk), Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 18:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Both articles are long enough and new enough. The hook is intriguing and has an inline citation to an offline source. Other references for Hawksmoor are mostly behind paywalls. The article Ginger Pig does not include the hook fact but I think that is not a DYK requirement. The image is appropriately licensed and I observed no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Second QPQ needed as Andrew and Northamerica each has over five DYKs already. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 21:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I have just reviewed Frank Ringo and will do more to get that back on track. I have started adding more images to the Hawksmoor article and updated the one suggested for DYK use. Andrew (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Andrew Davidson. Second QPQ done. It is not an initial full review, but nevertheless it contributes significantly to the nom process. Positive element of initial review by Cwmhiraeth still stands, and is taken on trust. I'll expand on policy issues in the hope of forestalling delays on this nom (this is a confirmation, not to question the review). Both articles are objective, neutral and fully referenced. At first sight the Hawksmoor article appears a little too positive, perhaps even verging on the promotional ("to offer high-quality, well-butchered beef" and "especially successful") but in context these are basic facts explaining initial purpose, and verbalising the very high profit made - and it is balanced by the negative criticism by Gill at the end. Spot checks for sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing found no matches. The hook checks out with offline citation #3 in the Hawksmoor article. Issue: The hook is not repeated in the Ginger Pig article, so we don't know which citation in Ginger Pig is supposed to support it. When the hook and its inline citation has been added to Ginger Pig, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Andrew Davidson, are you planning on doing anything to address Storye book's points, or should we close this nomination (that sounds more imperious than I meant it to, but you get the gist; you can imagine me swooping out of the sky like a Valkyrie if it motivates you.) Belle (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll take another look to keep this moving. Andrew (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ruth Budd, William Kuinka, Dirk Keetbaas, Symphony Six

Created by Big iron (talk). Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg All articles new enough, long enough, well sourced. Hook is interesting, neutral, inline-cited, but at 208 characters excluding markup, needs to be trimmed. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that in 1951 the Symphony Six – six Canadian musicians including Dirk Keetbaas, William Kuinka, and Ruth Budd – were denied access to the United States under suspicion of leftist activities?
  • @Rwxrwxrwx: Thanks for the review, the hook has been trimmed but you should check the articles for copyvios.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg No copyvios found. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The hook fact needs to be cited in each article, per DYK rules. I added it to the Dirk Keetbaas article. Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Skr15081997: I saw your reminder on my talk page. When I skimmed the Dirk Keetbaas article while checking for the hook cite, I noticed close paraphrasing, and was waiting to find time to check the text against the sources. I just did that, and fixed the close paraphrasing as well as mistakes in the text, and added some better refs than 1000 Questions About Canada. Please give me a little more time to check through the other two articles. By the way, the Symphony six article is totally unreferenced, and also a victim of close paraphrasing. Perhaps you want to fix that up in the meantime and make it a quintuple nom? Yoninah (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The Symphony six article needs 9524 more characters to meet the 5x expansion criteria. I am accepting this as a challenge.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 2nd update: Symphony Six has successfully undergone a 5x expansion. I added it to the ALT1 hook (I removed Steven Staryk since he's not included in this nomination, and to keep it under 200 char). Skr15081997 is now reviewing/improving the other nominated articles so this nomination can pass. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 18[edit]

John V. Farwell & Co. & John V. Farwell

Gray dorcopsis

Created by Teemu08 (talk). Self nominated at 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg QPQs done. --Storye book (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re John V. Farwell. New enough (created 19 June, nom 19 June), and long enough. The article text is objective, neutral, and fully referenced, although almost all of it is sourced in one offline book. Because the sources are offline, no checks could be made for copyvio or close paraphrasing. No disambig links found in manual check.--Storye book (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re John V. Farwell & Co.. New enough (created 18 June) and long enough. The article text is objectively written and neutral in style, and is fully referenced. No sources of copyvio or close paraphrasing found. No disambig links found.--Storye book (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hook: The hook is sourced in the article John V. Farwell & Co. to offline citation #4. Hook image is free and appears in one of the articles. Issue: the hook needs to be repeated in full in the article John V. Farwell with an online citation.--Storye book (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Summary: When the hook has been repeated and sourced in the article John V. Farwell with its inline citation, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Storye book: Thank you for your review. I have improved the referencing and made a more explicit reference to Marshall Field's in the Farwell article. Teemu08 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note to other editors: reviewer Storye book is on a wiki-break while dealing with computer issues. This entry may require another reviewer in the meantime. Teemu08 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Teemu08, I took a look to see whether Storye book's concerns had been addressed, but while looking at both articles there seem to be general issues that need to be dealt with. The hook issue is one: the major single source for the John V. Farwell article does not support the assertion that Field and Leiter were ever partners with Farwell: indeed, it says that Farwell became a partner in 1850 and the firm name changed to include Farwell in 1860—the way the entry there is written, Field and Leiter joined around the time of the 1860 name change to Cooley, Farwell & Co. (mentioned in the Farwell bio source, but not mentioned in the Farwell & Co. article and seeming to contradict Wadsworth's 1863 retirement) and Farwell supervised their training. The source doesn't mention them further; what is needed in the bio is info from the sources from the other article that talk about the 1864 partnership and the 1865 departure. For the John V. Farwell & Co. article, it needs to mention Farwell himself in the intro—you have to involve the person whose name is given to the firm. The intro has other issues (was it the clothing store or the original that was the most successful?), and it also mischaracterizes the ultimate sale to Carson, Pirie & Co., which is fine in the article body. It's important that these two articles not contradict each other... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 19[edit]

Sri Temasek

Sri Temasek

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Jacklee (talk), Hildanknight (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 11:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

  • If the article is selected, please give credit to primary contributor Jacklee, as I only nominated the article and added two references. To be honest, I feel the hook is not interesting enough. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)i
  • Added credit to the primary contributor. Although these contributions date from 2008, little extra was needed to bring the article to GA in 2014. Oceanh (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Struck original hook, deemed insufficiently interesting by person who took it to GA status. New ALT hook needed if this is to be fully reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How about the fact that, although it is the official residence of the Prime Minister, none of the Prime Ministers have actually lived there? --Hildanknight (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Here is a suggestion for an alternative hook:

  • ALT1: ... that Sri Temasek (pictured) is designated as the official residence of the Prime Minister of Singapore, though none of the past or present holders of the post have lived there with their family?

Oceanh (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To Hildanknight: Did not see your post before I saved my suggestion, which is essentially similar to your proposal — thank you, maybe your wording is better. Oceanh (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. In addition, here's Hildanknight's version of the hook written out as a proper ALT, for consideration by the reviewer:

EEng (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg New enough (GA 19 June, nom 20 June) and long enough. Hook image is free and appears in article; the other article image is free also. QPQ not required. Article text is objective, neutral, and fully referenced. No disambig links found. I have struck ALT1 in response to comment by its author and because ALT2 supersedes it. I have corrected the grammar of ALT2. The noun "none", meaning "not one", is singular therefore the verb must be "has", not "have", in Standard English. ALTs 2 and 3 are sourced in offline citation #7, accepted AGF. The accessible external links were checked for sources of possible copyvio and close paraphrasing, but none found. Issue: Citations #3, #9, #10, #11 and the first link in the External Links section are deadlinks. When the above deadlink issue has been resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing at the deadlinks. These references seem to have been added (and accessed) in 2008, that is more than five years ago, and indicates the instability of weblinks in the long term. The Oxford Dictionary now seems to be a subscription service, and this (ref 3) should either be marked as such by someone who has subscription, or better be replaced by a book reference, which is more stable. (I have another dictionary with similar but still different description of the word cynosure; or I could probably find the book in a library at some occation). The dead external link can simply be removed. References 9, 10 and 11 are used to document facts in the article, and are therefore important. Maybe @Hildanknight, who brought the article to GA, can help (pinging in case you didn't already notice the discussion)? Oceanh (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Hildanknight and Oceanh to see if anything is being done on this. (Storye book, this will probably be long gone by the time you get back but "none" is interchangeably singular and plural, so whatever person of the verb sounds best is fine. Susie Dent told me.) Belle (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 20[edit]

Russell Wilson (mayor)

  • ... that after Russell Wilson suffered two strokes he was granted a leave of absence by Saskatoon's city council and thus became the shortest serving mayor in the city's history?

Created by Big iron (talk). Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 12:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

  • I have no idea what a "heart stroke" is, and the article doesn't contain the string heart. EEng (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed the word heart from the hook.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, properly cited, and free of close paraphrasing, copyright violations, and plagiarism. Hook is short enough, interesting, and cited with an inline citation, and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Pulled from prep owing to close paraphrasing. I've currently only checked the PD source, but owing to how prevalent the issue is I think pulling was necessary. Example: Article: ""died at home three weeks later on November 13 at the age of 72." source: "died in his home three weeks later, on Friday November 13, at the age of 72." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This touches on another concern I've had for a while now, which is that there seems to be a misunderstanding among DYK regulars as to what constitutes a close paraphrasing problem. As Crisco mentions, the source is PD anyway, but even if not, this doesn't constitute close paraphrase -- this is a classic case of WP:LIMITED. EEng (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, nixed the first clause in that statement; the highlighted issue is from the second source (which I read while still writing that comment). There are several great cases for WP:LIMITED in the text "He married X", etc. This is not one of them, nor is the structure of the paragraph this clause is in (read the two sentence by sentence and you'll see what I mean). Reworking here is trivial, nothing near what WP:LIMITED refers to. For instance, "on November 13, three weeks after his stroke, Wilson died at his home. He was aged 72." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The example you gave originally is certainly allowable, but the paragraph as a whole, as you now point out, is flat-out not OK, especially in the copying of the peculiar phrase "acclaimed as mayor". EEng (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I have removed the close paraphrasing present in the article. The PDF source provides us most of the info about him. Since this article is a biography you will obviously find almost the same chronological pattern.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng or Crisco 1492, can any one of you review the article now.Skr15081997 (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: I have removed the close paraphrasing issues almost a week ago, please review the article again.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Still looks a little close. The easiest way to deal with close paraphrasing of the structural variety is to find information from another source which expands on what your first source told you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that a bank account belonging to former mayor of Saskatoon, Russell Wilson, was unclaimed since 1929?
  • I like the unclaimed money, though we don't know if it's still unclaimed:
ALT2 ... that a bank account belonging to former mayor of Saskatoon, Russell Wilson, went unclaimed for 77 years?

EEng (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @EEng: your hook is better than mine. Can you review the article?--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Skr, I agree with Crisco that the structure is still quite close to that of FN2. However, it looks like there's some details in FN1 that could be incorporated to help deal with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: thanks for the suggestion. I have added a few words from the first source, which is in PD. After doing a bit of copyediting I feel that the issue has been resolved.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Rock 'n' Roll Cities

Created by Beatleswhobeachboys (talk). Nominated by Wilhelmina Will (talk) at 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is sufficiently long, new, and the hook is appropriately referenced and interesting. Not a self-nom so no QPQ needed. Looks good to go. Teemu08 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article could use a copyedit to smooth out the grammar. Also, the reviewer should check for close paraphrasing. Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the prose tightening, @Wilhelmina Will:. I do not really see any issues with paraphrasing. I can see @Yoninah: is coming from with his comments, as that Rolling Stone snippet is fairly long. However, since there is a dearth of reviews for the song, I think that an extended quote is OK as it is properly attributed. A blockquote template might be more appropriate if this was a high-level review like FA or GA, but for a DYK I think that it is fine. Teemu08 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The prose flows nicely now, but I can't approve this yet because there are are no footnotes in the "Release" section of the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Cebrennus rechenbergi

C. rechenbergi doing the flic-flac

Created by Sarefo (talk). Self nominated at 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

  • there's now also a picture in the article, but the original author has not sent the permission email to wikimedia yet. --Sarefo (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Note, permission was received by OTRS on June 25,[3] so the image is good to go. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned about the prose size. It appears to fall short of the eligibility requirement (1412/1500). I would hate to see this interesting DYK get rejected so please remedy the problem by briefly expanding it. I'm willing to keep this open if you can expand it shortly. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the article slightly and it is now 1609 B. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. The current nom is somewhat repetitive, telling us that the Moroccan flic-flac spider uses a flic-flac motion. Since we already know it is a flic-flac spider, would it be helpful to describe it in a different way here? Although interesting, I see more appeal with the spider robot on Mars hook in the last paragraph, but that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Waa, a flic-flacking spider, what can be more cool?! :) I'll marvel about the bot when it actually has some real uses, not just a bionics guy talking his toy up :) About the nom, how about "the Moroccan huntsman spider Cebrennus rechenbergi uses a flic-flac motion"? --Sarefo (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Better. In the previous hook, you said it uses the motion to evade threats. In the article, you say it engages in "flic-flacking in order to minimize evade threats". That doesn't sound right. If I had to guess, I would say you were missing an "and", as in "flic-flacking in order to minimize and evade threats. The source cited doesn't help. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. No idea how the "minimize" got in there. --Sarefo (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering that we have so little content, the fact that the sentence "It is most closely related to the Tunisian Cebrennus villosus, which does not flic-flac" is unsourced presents a problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
sourced now. I think I just got bored putting the refs behind each sentence :) -Sarefo (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That's definitely an improvement, thanks. After reviewing the nomination and making a few copyedits, I'm seeing the primary problem come into focus. The article relies on just two sources: a university press release and a science news website. I think the article really need to cite the main source Jäger 2014. If you don't have access to it, we can request it at WP:RX. I think in this particular instance, it would be very helpful. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a request. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, the spider flic-flacs. No idea how the paper will change the veracity of that. But if you find the time to improve the article, go ahead :) --Sarefo (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not satisfied just yet. Let's repeat your current ALT below in case another reviewer wants to sign off on it. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, do what you think is best; but I don't remember having to jump through hoops of shifting goalposts the last times I wanted to share something awesome in the DYK section. I don't see the merit of going to the original literature for now, and I think it would be in everybody's interest if the discussion about the DYKability of the article would not take more time than actually creating the article. --Sarefo (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't watchlist this page. I can't be the only reviewer around here. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the Moroccan huntsman spider Cebrennus rechenbergi uses a flic-flac motion?

Looking again, I see paraphrasing issues. I've made the sources explicit. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've just added two new reliable sources into the article for expansion and verification.[4] Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And, I just fixed another error.[5] This article requires a thorough fact-checking, and is far from accurate. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Correction: the article was correct but the NYT and UPI were mistaken. I have remedied the situation and I will now add an inline note explaining it. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Symbol delete vote.svgThe article is new enough, and now meets the prose length requirements. The article is sourced, though it should at some point be updated with the actual physical descriptions/ecology etc from the type description. Also there are still several sentences that have very similar/same wording as sources. If the wording were updated It would not be an issue. it looks like the original nominator has abandoned the nom?--Kevmin § 20:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I was put off by the never-ending shifting goalposts proposed to what I think should be a sufficiently interesting article of sufficient quality. C'mon, it's a goddamn FLIC-FLACKING SPIDER!! :) Do what you will with it, I don't care anymore. I don't remember having it been like this with earlier nominations. --Sarefo (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sarefo, I understand your frustration. However, what appears to you as "moving the goalposts" is actually a process-driven, detail-oriented attempt to review your nomination. If reviewers find a problem and then you fix it, but then another problem is found, that is not "moving the goalposts", it is an attempt to fix issues with this nomination. We shouldn't pass a nomination simply because it has met one criteria when others are left unfulfilled, so I don't follow your reasoning here. FWIW, User:Phoebe said she would email me the research article so I could better review the actual source. We have had many problems with earlier nominations, so the criteria has tightened up a bit in practice. Of course, if a nomination is made that has little to no issues, it is easily passed. At this point, I'm not comfortable passing it until I've had a chance to look at the research article and most of the close paraphrasing is resolved. If Phoebe sends me the article, I'll be happy to take another look. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Phoebe sent me the original source and I'm reading it now. There is no way the current article can pass due to the close paraphrasing, so it needs to be rewritten. However, I will attempt to help out as time permits and see if we can't get this passed. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Viriditas, I recognize your good intentions. Let me know if you think I can contribute anything content-related to the article. I'm really bad with re-phrasing though, so I'm gonna pass on that. As an aside, part of my reaction was due to my fear that en.wiki might become more like the ghastly de.wiki, where a league of blockwarts is making a living off of wanking off to making other editor's life a misery. It hurts to be excluded from the wikipedia of your native language, so sometimes my tempers flare :P --Sarefo (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I understand. I've got a little bit of free time right now, so let's see if I can't finish this up. I'll notify the DYK talk page that it will need a review when I'm done (I can't pass it now because I'm too involved in cleaning it up). Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Update: there's still close paraphrasing in the article. I think I'll have it completely removed by today. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 22[edit]

Steve Ormerod

  • ... that Steve Ormerod is chair of Europe's largest wildlife charity?
  • Reviewed: tbc

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Self nominated at 16:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough, but requires expansion as it is not long enough at 1423 characters. Two other problems: there are two citation needed tags that should be addressed, and the only time "largest wildlife charity" is mentioned is in the lead. Please do a QPQ as well. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Taylor Trescott: I believe that the length is now adequate; the CNs are gone. It would seem superfluous to repeat the "largest charity" statement again in a short article. QPQ to follow shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, the article needs a few extra characters (it is currently 1446 characters and needs to be 1500). Also, the DYK hook fact needs to be sourced in the article; even a source in the lead for "biggest wildlife fund" would be better than nothing. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Extra characters added. I suggest an alternative hook, "... that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds's new chair, Steve Ormerod, already has a Marsh Award for Marine and Freshwater Conservation?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) 20:11, 26 July 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg While the article is now 1537 prose characters according to DYKcheck, the QPQ is still outstanding; Andy Mabbett, this can't go anywhere without a quid pro quo review. Furthermore, both hooks are problematic due to article/source disagreements and failure to source hook facts in the article:
  • Original hook does not source "Europe's largest wildlife charity", and the RSPB site itself isn't that expansive, saying "Europe's largest wildlife conservation charity", not the same thing. For DYK, hook facts need to be sourced by the end of the article sentence in which they appear. I've struck the hook since sourcing is neither in the article near the fact nor confirms its accuracy, but it can be restored if appropriately modified and sourced.
  • Alternate hook calls Ormerod a "new chair", something not in the article, and as he was appointed on 6 October 2012, the "new" is not currently accurate. Furthermore, he's generally called "Council Chair" in the various sources (he himself says "chair RSPB Council" in the RSPB one), which strikes me as a significant distinction. I'm also dubious about the use of "already"—is it unusual to have the award sooner?—and not sure why the Marsh award makes for an interesting hook (or why it's said in the article to be the Zoological Society of London's award, when the Marsh page for Ormerod only calls ZSL a partner). The Marsh page does make compelling reading on the areas and importance of Ormerod's research, which I hadn't known from reading the article. The article says nothing about his research, and needs to. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


"Wildlife charity" and "wildlife conservation charity" are synonymous. "Council Chair" (of the RSPB) and "chair RSPB Council" are synonymous with "chair of the RSPB". But perhaps it's time to invite someone else to suggest a hook? As to the article content, be my guest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 23[edit]

Make U Bounce

  • ... that the music video for "Make U Bounce" features a woman with massive hands causing carnage out of revenge?

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 17:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

Done.--Launchballer 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me suggest:

  • ALT1 ... that the music video for "Make U Bounce" features a woman in no mood for butt-nonsense wreaking revenge with her massive hands?

(butt-nonsense is in [6]. EEng (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough. QPQ was done. Both hooks are short enough. While both hooks have in-line citations, neither citation is a reliable source. The article has a maintenance template on it questioning the article's verifiability. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You may be right about source reliability. I was just looking to improve the hook wording. EEng (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Earlier on I took out The Daily Star and Imvdb.com, but my computer stopped recognised the DNS lookup of this website before I could report it here. Any other unreliable sources?--Launchballer 16:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Notabledance.com and Ministryofsound.com both look unreliable. At this point you have no reliable sources for your hooks even once you remove the maintenance template. The link for Daily Star goes to a disambiguation page so I'm not sure what it refers to, but I had assumed it was a newspaper. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Star I have fixed the link to. Michig, in an exchange on his talk page, has advised me that it is acceptable as one reviewer's opinion; would Notabledance.com be the same? Notabledance.com has been removed.--Launchballer 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bahrain–United Kingdom relations

5x expanded by Mohamed CJ (talk). Self nominated at 11:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

  • The hook isn't supported by citations immediately after the claims in the article, and the article doesn't say that the British authorities "refused to declare it so", just that they did not publicly acknowledge its status as a protectorate (a situation that had not changed since the 1880s). Expansion fivefold is OK, age is OK, but I haven't checked the sources for plagiarism. Belle (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. As far as I can see, the hook is directly supported in the section "Bahrain Order in Council and WWI". I have now directly supported it in the previous section as well. As for "refused", I thought it was covered by the Foreign Office refusing to use "strict terms" to define the status of Bahrain. Anyway, I'll change it to "did not admit" (as one British Official once said [7]). How about ALT1 ... that although Bahrain had effectively been a British Protectorate between 1880 and 1913, British authorities did not publicly admit so back then? Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The rule is that the hook "fact" is supported by an inline citation directly following it. For this hook you have to collate facts from different places in the article. I don't think the rule is one of the better DYK criteria but as it stands you'd be better off trying something else (it is hard to phrase this fact nicely anyway). What about:
  • ALT2: "... that, in 1861, Britain agreed to protect Bahrain as long as its ruler did not in engage in the "prosecution of war, piracy and slavery at sea"? "
  • (you'd need to move one of the citations to the end of that sentence in the article to comply with the rule). Belle (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the hook. Citation moved accordingly. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook is set. (Note: changed second of two ALT1s to ALT2 for clarity.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blagoje Jovovic

Created by Aleksa Lukic (talk). Self nominated at 01:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Over two times the minimum character limit, created today and is neutral. I couldn’t find any word for word copying. However, the last few sentences of the article was uncited and the actual facts that the hook is based upon need to be internally cited (just citing the end of the paragraph won’t work). The hook is under 200 characters and is interesting. The image is licensed under acceptable licenses for being used on DYK. Just clear up the citation issues and this DYK hook will be good to go. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Did you have this in mind? Alex discussion 03:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Ok, everything looks good to go. Per the below, I've removed my check. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Hold on. The paragraph on the assassination in the article does not make a lot of sense in English (it needs a copy-edit at the very least) and seems to be a direct translation (not paraphrased) from the source cited. The source appears to be a Serbian tabloid news site, so I don't know whether this would normally be classified as a reliable source. Regardless of that, I noticed that the image was taken from the same news site and then a given a CC licence by the nominator which doesn't seem right, especially as the news site credits the image to Wikipedia in the first place. As the news site had presumably taken the image from some other language's wikipedia, I had a look at the most obvious candidates and found that the image and text for the news site's article came from the Serbian Wikipedia article. This is almost circular referencing. The original referencing for the Serbian article came from a web article that is now a dead link, but according to (the admittedly not very reliable) Google Translate was called "The truth about the assassination of a war criminal Ante Pavelic" and was hosted on the web site of the "Serbian National Defence Council of America"; neither the article nor the web site have particularly neutral sounding titles and I doubt we can think of them as reliable sources. Belle (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Bellemora I'm not sure what paragraph in particular you're referring to. If you had the book quote in mind, it had to be translated directly, because it's a quotation from the book. I used Telegraf.rs as a source, but if you pay more attention, you could see that my assertions are supported by other reliable sources as well (in the 'References' section). As for the picture, I've probably overlooked that (that website's licensing confused me), so I will change the licensing and the picture can be removed. Moreover, I couldn't find the quotation saying "The truth about the assassination of a war criminal Ante Pavelic", so could you please provide a link? And if you get into account all the atrocities and things a sane mind couldn't even imagine that Ante Pavelic is responsible of, you wouldn't care much of "neutral sounding". Alex discussion 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about the whole section on the assassination which (although translated) seems to be nearly identically phrased and structured across this article, the Telegraf article and the Serbian Wikipedia article (the Serbian WP article omits the book extract though). I think that if you have other more reliable sources then you should to use them to support the claims in the article rather than use the Telegraf which has obviously cribbed from the Serbian WP article. "The truth about the assassination of a war criminal Ante Pavelic" was the Google Translate rendering of "Истина о атентату на ратног злочинца Анту Павелића" found as the cited source in [8]. As for neutrality, it is one of the DYK criteria. Belle (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I am kind of embarrassed right now for missing all of this. I only read English, and I kind of just assumed that the provided news source was a reputable news source and not a copy of another Wikipedia. Regardless, I found a source that might come in handy: [9]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've removed the picture and improved the referencing a little bit. Is it OK now? Alex discussion 10:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The text is still identical to the Telegraf article, and the new source you added seems to be another version of Tihomir Tiho Burzanovic account which is already in the pdf (3rd ref) Belle (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Bellemora I've improved the referencing as you noted. The author on the Serbian Wikipedia has originally created that content and he used that book as a source. Is it acceptable now? Alex discussion 11:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten this, it is just that checking Serbian sources takes a while. Belle (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, an attribution tag of some sort is needed to indicate that this translates heavily from the Serbian Wikipedia (this is a requirement of all articles that translate heavily from another language Wikipedia so the attribution section of the Creative Commons license is met). I'll try to find the tag myself and get it posted in talk. Also, I'll defer to Belle for final approval since she seems competent at working with foreign language sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I need to point out also that I HAVEN'T TRANSLATED the content, but I have REPHRASED it and then that rephrased content I've translated into English. Alex discussion 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The source which is used in the citations for the paragraph preceding the excerpt does not appear to include many of the details "He then staggered, bent and he was begging for mercy" for example.
I'm not sure what you mean about having rephrased and then translated something. Compare:

"On Wednesday, 10th April at 9 am, in the evening, after leaving the omnibus Pavelic is suspected in his first companion and turned in the direction of Blagoje and fired several shots. Jovovich ran for Pavelic and fired five bullets in his direction. Two bullets struck Pavelic, who stumbled, but bent began to cries of pain and begs for mercy." - Serbian WP

"On Wednesday, April 10 at 9 am in the evening, after leaving the omnibus Pavelic is suspected in his first companion and turned in the direction of Blagoje fired several shots. Jovovich ran for Pavelic and fired five bullets in his direction. Two bullets struck Pavelic, who stumbled, but bent began to cries of pain and begs for mercy." - Telegraf

"On April 10 at 9 o’clock PM Pavelic, after he doubted his first companion, he turned back and fired several shots towards Jovovic. Jovovic then started running after Pavelic and in his direction he fired five shots, out of which two hit him. He then staggered, bent and he was begging for mercy" - this article

This part of the article at least is almost identical to the Telegraf and Serbian WP article in its structure, phrasing and inclusion of details that I can't see in the source. There are also significant gaps or errors in the article; for example, it implies that the assassination attempt took place in Italy when it was in Argentina. This needs more work, bringing in line with the sources and a preferably a copy edit from another bilingual editor ("after he doubted his first companion" for instance is hard to understand and it is unclear whether the "PM" in "9 o’clock PM Pavelic" means "9pm" or "Prime Minister Pavelic"). Belle (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
All right. Thanks. I've corrected issues as you noted. If you could please note more of them, it would be appreciated. Have you checked the section about beginning for mercy in the book. I will look it up soon. But if it's falsification, you can remove it. I'm not sure if there's a copy in English, but if you think so, don't hesitate to remove it. Alex discussion 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not the best person to ask (I speak a lot of languages but Serbo-Croat isn't one of them, and Google Translate can give an idea at best). At this stage you really need a completely bilingual copyeditor or somebody with Serbian as a strong second language. Your correction for "after he doubted his first companion" for example is not a lot clearer and I can't see exactly what is meant from the source. Did Pavelic recognize Jovovic's companion? In the source it appears that Pavelic separated from a companion (bodyguard?) he was walking with, but, as I say, the translation is not good. Belle (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 24[edit]


  • ... that the demoness Trijata is regarded the ideal of a true friend?
  • Reviewed: Li Shaohong
  • Comment: 5x began on 21 June and ended today

5x expanded by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 09:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is recently expanded, well written, within policy, and though I could not very close paraphrasing, I'll AGF on that. Same for the source of the quote (the quote itself does indeed verify the hook). However: I see an issue with this file -- I am confident that the content creator reused in good faith, but I am not sure that it should have been uploaded on commons. Like many other such files from the subcontinent, it has a very questionable "not in copyright" tag. It claims to reproduce a print by Anant Shivaji Desai (when in fact it looks like a very modern kitschy design, perhaps 1950s), it claims two sources of provenance (e-bay [!] and columbia.edu -- the latter with a misleading link that redirects to this beautiful piece). I think it should be removed from commons altogether, and I frankly recommend a big purge of all such uploads. This problem should not affect the rest of the article, which is manifestly within policy, but I feel it falls within the "no copyright violations" requirement. Dahn (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Images of Desai are all pre-1945, thus being PD-India. This was established in multiple DRs at Commons. So the image you point out is good to stay here and there. But if you still doubt it, feel free to use File:Folio from a Ramayana manuscript, text in Devanagari.jpg or File:Sita accepting a jewel from Hanumana sent by Rama, 1800s.jpg and pass the nomination as you say it shouldn't affect the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The image clearly has Anant Shivaji Desai printed on the bottom, meaning that it's fairly certain to be published before 1945 (check the version before the crop). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This needs a reviewer to give this a final check; it appears that the image issue has been explained satisfactorily. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 25[edit]


Kartikeya with Devasena and Valli

  • ... that Devasena (pictured with her husband) represents Heaven, her co-wife Valli denotes the earth?

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 17:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg new enough, long enough, qpq done, refs checked, hook checked. good 2 go.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The first paragraph under "Legends and textual references" needs a cite, per DYK rules. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Cites are all in order now. Restoring tick. Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 26[edit]

List of fictional characters on stamps of the United States

Created by Slambo (talk). Self nominated at 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • I will select and QPQ review another article later tonight. Slambo (Speak) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt the factual accuracy of the statement but you don't go to any of the stamps, as far as I can see, if you click on the links; either the main link or the subsidiary links. In its current form this hook is a little disappointing. Could it be narrowed to point directly to a relevant stamp? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be cool to link to articles about the stamps, but they haven't been written yet with the exception of the Celebrate the Century series (in which the Barbie stamp was issued on the pane for the 1960s). For the article, I followed the example of the list for real people on stamps, where each entry links to articles about the subjects themselves. Slambo (Speak) 22:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand but for me it falls a little flat. I think people will expect to see Barbie or Harry Potter on a stamp when they click, in fact those articles are light on images, probably because everything is still in copyright. It could be narrowed so that the subsidiary links go to images of similar characters on out of copyright stamps if any, it wouldn't be Harry Potter obviously. In the US that's everything up to the end of 1977. There may not be any of course. The main link also has very few images. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I tried to find as many images that we have available so far to illustrate the list, but only found those that are there now. Looking through my own collection, I don't see too many possibilities for additional scans from pre-1978 stamps. Most of the fictional characters that have appeared on US stamps have been on issues after 1990. The hook could be amended to mention the headless horseman and others from earlier, but I thought the subjects I noted in the first hook would be more interesting to non-philatlists. Slambo (Speak) 22:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to be a downer on it. I will leave it to others to give their views. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I added an alt hook that points to articles showing stamp images that are in the public domain. Slambo (Speak) 23:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Good work. That's much stronger in my view. Personally, I would go through the pre 1978 U.S. stamps and see if there are any subjects without an illustration in the article and if so put the stamps in the article right at the top. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course, they have to be fictional characters so I guess you are a bit restricted. The rock isn't? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The rock formation is known by a specific name and had a fictional persona created about him. Slambo (Speak) 23:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, you could change the hook to read "the Old Man of the Mountains"? Also change the scan in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed, including thoughts about the hooks. Suggesting ALT2 as a variant on ALT1 per Philafrenzy's request:

Zaccheus Mason

Created by PapaJeckloy (talk). Self nominated at 22:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg long enough, new enough, sources checks out, qpq done, hook checks out. Good 2 go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this one from prep as there are instances of WP:PARAPHRASE, especially from reference 4. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have removed the quotations and rephrased some sentences, and i added more text there, there are no paraphrase instances now, i also added more references, It's now good to go. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC).
Symbol possible vote.svg The article needs a copy edit for grammar and spelling. I've tagged the article.—Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 27[edit]

Korean drama

  • ... that Korean drama production companies spend roughly 55-65% of their whole budget on recruiting top stars for a series?
  • ALT1:... that the filming schedule of a Korean drama is so tight actors often have to sleep in awkward places and positions on set, for which the industry has its own invented expression: "side-sleeping"?
  • ALT2:... that an overwhelming majority of scriptwriters of Korean drama are women, while there are only a handful of female directors?
  • Comment: Although not in 7 days, I needed more time, since the article was really in a very bad condition; but it was completely rewritten (see its old state), re-referenced and re-structured to solve the issues with the article.

5x expanded by Teemeah (talk). Self nominated at 13:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Although a lot of effort has gone into completely rewriting this article I fear it does not meet the DYK criteria as the article was 20 kB before the expansion and is only 24 kB now. The only likely way for it to qualify for DYK will be if it is promoted to become a GA, then it will qualify by right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, It was completely rewritten from zero. Please compare the text to its previous state. This was not an expansion but a rewrite of an extremely poor quality article. It couldn't be made much longer even if you tried. This is an FA in huwiki. I feel that following rules by the letter is discriminating in a lot of cases. Or the community needs to expand the rules to include these cases, as well. This article is as new and as interesting as any other on this page, and all this is going to be decided by mere quantitative numbers only? What if I blanked the whole page and started anew? Teemeah 편지 (letter) 22:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if the state of the article on July 4th, when you had removed a large quantity of text, was taken as a start point, the article still does not nearly reach a fivefold expansion. If you feel aggrieved, you can open a discussion on the DYK talk page. I may sympathise with your point of view, but I am only applying the DYK rules. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Teemeah, with established articles such as this that have a great deal of text before edits begin, making a 5x expansion not possible, Cwmhiraeth is right: the sole route available to you for DYK is for the article to become a Good Article (see WP:GAN for how to nominate your article). Once an article is listed as a GA, you'll have seven days to nominate it here. Blanking the article page is not an option; we would still count from the previously existing material. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Bear's grease

Atkinsons Bears Grease

  • ... that bear's grease was a popular treatment for hair loss, because of a mistaken belief that as bears are very hairy, their fat could help humans?

Created by Edwardx (talk), Victuallers (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg The article is interesting and promising but the hook needs more work as we're within the scope of WP:MEDRS. The word "mistaken" in the original hook seems to overstate what's said in the supporting source. The source explains why people believed in this treatment but doesn't actually say that they were wrong. I suppose the truth of the matter is that we really don't know for sure because proper clinical trials have not been done. The ALT1 hook seems to err in the other direction and might naively be read as meaning that this is an effective treatment.

To find the middle ground, we might just trim the original hook. Here's some examples:

Another way to go is to focus on the picture, which we're not currently using.

This leaves the reader wondering why there would be a popular brand of bear's grease and they may click through to find out what people used it for.

Andrew (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I recommend that we conduct a full clinical trial on the matter before proceeding. I would also like to know whether eating more fish makes you a better swimmer and if carrots help you see in the dark. Or, we could go with ALT5 "... that bear's grease was once thought to be an effective treatment for hair loss?" Philafrenzy (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally I agree with the logic of ALT4 EEng (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Andrew. Increasingly, I favour short and snappy hooks. All of your three ALTs are an improvement on my original thought. I would be happy with any of them, and ALT4 may indeed be the most straightforward. The very idea of bear's grease is intriguing and needs little elaboration to create a good hook. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The intrigue of ALT4. EEng (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC) I seem to have said this already.
There's no citation for ALT4 and it differs from what the article states anyway (ALT parade meet my rain) Belle (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, go put bear grease on your cat. Or whatever. Andrew, can you fix the article to accommodate this hook? EEng (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Long enough, new enough, no copyvio or plagiarism, neutral. QPQ done. The line on the Native American use is too close to the source. I have a few problems with this article though: it sets out a topic ("Bear's Grease", a baldness treatment) and then largely focuses on another (the uses of bear grease in general); many of the claims aren't referenced (although references for some of the claims can be found in the sources for the Atkinsons article, many are unsupported); there is some blurring of the source statements (for example "In the British market, the grease from Russian bears was the most highly prized" "In the British market" isn't what the source says); there is an uncited explanation of the Cruikshank cartoon (if it doesn't need citing perhaps it doesn't need explaining); the section on use by the Native Americans is so reduced from the source as to be almost useless. (Apart from that and the uncited hook, everything is fine!) Belle (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Another great example of why?, oh why?? do we insist in nominating within 7 days??? Edwx, Vict, Phila, can you go off at your leisure and do what needs to be done, then get back to us when the article's ready? EEng (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Woodworth Personal Data Sheet

Created by Antrocent (talk). Self nominated at 09:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

  • The apparent cite for the hook -- the Kaplan source -- doesn't say WPDS was the first personality test, rather the first "structured" personality test. I don't know what that means, but it's not what the hook says. Also, searching Kaplan for the word commission doesn't find anything about Woodworth being commissioned by the US Army. (I can believe it, but we need something actually saying so.) EEng (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added a new citation identifying the Woodworth as the "earliest personality instrument". I have modified the hook and replaced "commissioned" with "developed" which is supported by the Kaplan source. Antrocent (♫♬) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, perhaps an ALT HOOK giving its purpose may be more interesting:
Antrocent (♫♬) 12:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Great! And I like ALT2 -- I think people think PTSD is some phony modern thing, and good to show it goes way back (even to the Civil War, actually, just under other names). EEng (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed for article and ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nossa Senhora da Graça incident

Created by Underbar dk (talk). Nominated by Kolbasz (talk) at 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Review underway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have reviewed the article, and sadly I am leaning towards rejection.
First, the good points. The article is newly-created. It was developed as a userspace draft, and then copy-pasted today to article space. I would have preferred that the article had been moved rather than pasted, and suggest a history merge, but the article clearly fits the DYK criteria of recent arrival in mainspace.
At 22 kB (3847 words) of "readable prose size", it far exceeds the 1500 characters minimum size for DYK.
The article is well-written, in engaging prose, and tells a compelling narrative of a critical historical incident. AFAICS, it appears to be neutral, and it is thoroughly referenced. There are a few points where I have added {{fact}} tags, but these are minor issues which I do not see as an impediment to DYK.
Most of the images appear to be free, but there are unresolved licensing issues with File:Tokugawa_Ieyasu.jpg. Before a DYK could proceed, the image should ether be removed or have its licensing status resolved.
As a historical event, there are no BLP issues.
The hook fact is interesting and correctly formatted, and I AGF that the off-line source has been used accurately.
However, that brings me to the big problem. The article is based on only 3 sources, each of which is a book written by C. R. Boxer. The article is therefore based wholly on the work of one writer.
That raises a number of problems, including a risk of copyright violation or close paraphrasing, and failure to include different perspectives on events. I have not encountered anything like this before, so I am unsure what the consensus is on the acceptability of using a single source like this. My own initial view is that it is inappropriate, and that the article should be restored to userspace for a complete rewrite, but I would prefer wider input. So I have listed the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 27.
I am sure that the huge effort put into creating this article was done in good faith, but this use of sources does need further evaluation. Pinging both the creator Underbar dk and the nominator Kolbasz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see rejecting it due to potential bias from the sources having a single author, but to go from "sources having the same author" to copyright violation feels like quite a leap of logic. Kolbasz (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I am also confounded by the sudden accusations (based on nothing but wanton speculation, no less), which does not seem AGF at all. I also do not appreciate my work being replaced by a copyright violation notice with, again, nothing more than impulse. I ask that the copyright violation be removed until someone has concrete evidence that the article was plagiarized, which I assure you is not. Getting to the crux of the "issue", Boxer is the only authority that I know of to have dealt with this incident in any significant detail. All the general references I've seen cite his works when they mention this incident, for example in China and Maritime Europe, 1500-1800 by John E. Wills Jr. _dk (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Underbar dk: Oh dear. Please can you step back, and AGF, and accept my assurances above that I raised these concerns reluctantly and for the reasons stated above?
As I made very clear both here and at DYK, I did not speculate. I noted that the article contains "a risk of copyright violation or close paraphrasing".
Nor are my objections based on "impulse". They are based on a genuine concern that basing such a detailed article so closely on the work of one author carries a great risk of copyvio, even if only by close paraphrasing.
I am aware that you put a huge amount of work into elegantly writing the article, but it remains a problem that it is all drawn from 3 published works of the same author. Whether that is best labelled as a copyvio or not is debatable, but I believe that there is a serious problem in basing such a lengthy article solely on the work of one author whose work is still in copyright. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
In the interest of centralizing discussion, I'll copy my exasperated reply from WP:CP to here, and add some more. "If you are not even sure that citing the same author should be labelled as a copyvio, perhaps it would be best if you have sorted out the interpretation of the rules on the Village Pump or elsewhere before you blank someone's work with a copyvio notice that you're not even sure if it's proper? Last I know, summarizing an author's work is not plagiarism if it's in my own words." In fact, WP:Close paraphrasing says "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy", which is exactly what I did. _dk (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have started a thread on the village pump on your suggestion. [10] _dk (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As noted at the village pump, I didn't actually want to blank the article, but that's what the template does.
There is no deadline. If the consensus is that this use of sources is appropriate, then the article can be easily unblanked. In the meantime, nothing has been deleted; it is just on hold pending clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There are serious breaches of accepted Wikipedia protocol that you need to address, specifically that if you are not sure, then you shouldn't be blanking people's articles "reluctantly", understanding that is what the template does. This is biting behaviour, and I'm not even a newbie. _dk (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
_dk, I have tried very hard to be understanding of the disappointment you must be feeling at criticism of an article which you have written so carefully and so well, and I have at all stages assumed good faith.
However, I am starting to feel that this dialogue is becoming a little one-sided, because I see from you no reciprocal respect for my good faith concern that this is an inappropriate way to use sources. When you start citing WP:BITE even tho you acknowledge that you are not a newbie, I feel less inclined to be gentle in reply.
Look, this isn't complicated. I have questions about sourcing which raise important issues of editorial policy. As you can see, I proactively set out to find venues to get quick answers, and I hope that these questions they can be resolved quickly. In the meantime please try to focus on the substance of those questions rather than making wikilawyering attempts to find some flaw in my efforts to get wider input into assessing them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I come across as rude or snide, but I'm sure you can understand my frustration at my hard work being blanked for reasons that I struggle to wrap my head around. Thankfully I am not the only one to feel this way, and I am glad to see the matter resolved to my satisfaction. My "wikilawyering", if you call it that, only seeks to get you (an admin, no less!) to follow the accepted practice on Wikipedia, which you continue to dismiss. You may be acting in good faith, and I can appreciate that, but you can hardly expect me not to sound accusatory after blanking my page. May we meet on better terms in our next encounter. Cheers. _dk (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The issues have been addressed. _dk (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry _dk, but I am afraid that they have not been resolved to my satisfaction. The consensus at the village pump is that this use of sources is not of itself evidence of a copyvio, and I am happy to accept that consensus. That resolves one issue.
      However, it remains the case that the article relies entirely on a single source: the work the historian C. R. Boxer. It includes no other perspective on events. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg With regret, I am changing my tentative "no" to a firm no.
    The use of File:Tokugawa Ieyasu.jpg remains unresolved, but could be fixed either by sorting out the licensing or by removing the image from the article. That point is not a deal-breaker.
    However, the fundamental problem remains that this article is derived solely from the works of one historian. No other sources are cited.
    I am glad that the consensus at the Village Pump discussion (permalink) is that this does not raise copyright problems, but per my initial comments, copyright issues are not my only concern with single-sourcing. There remains the wider question of what I described in my initial review as failure to include different perspectives on events.
    This could be resolved by a rewrite which included other perspectives, but as it stands the article does not attempt to incorporate different perspectives, and as such should not appear on the front page. Feel free to seek a third opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The article now uses File:Tokugawa Ieyasu2.JPG. Until or unless I or someone else finds another author who wrote about this incident (Japanese writers, maybe), I'm afraid that this is how things will stand. Thank you for your review in any case. Cheers. _dk (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The article also covers a lot of the historical context. Surely other sources exist for that aspect of the topic? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm astounded by the controversy here. This event is obscure enough that there may indeed be just few RS on it, possibly by just one author. If so, then there's nothing wrong with basing the article entirely on those sources, whose author (in his own article -- C. R. Boxer#Academic career) is described as producing a lifetime of work "highly original, pithy, and path-breaking ... 350 publications, all of the highest order of scholarship". Incredible crap is passed by DYK a dozen times a day, and somehow this article is a problem? EEng (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The worst sort of petty-minded bureaucratic nonsense I've seen in a while. Ericoides (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You obviously don't spend much time at DYK. EEng (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Shrewd rewording, very good. No, I can't say I find it as congenial as it used to be some years ago. Ericoides (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
[11] EEng (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
apparently, User:Heramba is currently the subject of an extensive SPI. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
How about you and I post a joke ANI report along those lines? "According to [1] this user admits to having at least 32 accounts blah blah presenting a number of different personalities blah blah. " I think that would be hysterical. To give equal opportunity to all the major religions, we'd be sure to include a "Trinity" of sockpuppets etc. EEng (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Utter heresy, you malevolent booby! Can't you hear us all, chanting from the terraces, "There's only one Jimbo Wales." etc, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this DYK nomination or a WP:GA review? I can't comment on the status of the books written by C. R. Boxer with regard to this subject matter. But at first sight he would appear to be something of an expert in the field. I'm astounded. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I should mention that I asked ME123 to comment, precisely because he and I have not always seen eye-to-eye on such matters. (In fact, we've sometimes fought tooth-and-nail -- even getting our noses out of joint! Sometimes when I tell him stuff it seems to just go in one ear and out the other. I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek, of course -- wouldn't want to shoot myself in the foot.) EEng (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
(...it was my foot actually, I've still got the bullet holes to prove it, thanks) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Once again I've put my foot in my mouth. EEng (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg I know BrownHairedGirl has already marked this as rejected, but it seems to me that that doesn't really do the article justice in terms of DYK eligibility, which as Martinevans123 says shouldn't be a GA or FA review. Boxer seems to be the only comprehensive English language source and all the accounts in Portuguese I could find that cite their sources use Boxer too. The jp wikipedia entry agrees with this article but isn't well cited, though it does refer to some other offline Japanese sources in the reference section. I did find this which is a very detailed account with pictures in the blog of a "history trivia" buff and quotes as its single source as 中央公論 "歴史と人物" from April 1957 (I can't untangle whether "歴史と人物" (history and people) may have been a supplement of 中央公論 (Chūōkōron), but if you can find it and can read Japanese it might help; assuming it wasn't written by Boxer; my head hurts when reading Japanese, so I'm not volunteering, but there are fluent readers around). Anyway, the blog pretty much agrees with the details of this article. BHG, if you want to undo my tick, you can (obviously you will become my mortal enemy in the process; that's a joke...you'd only become a regular enemy; also a joke...you get the idea; I'm not going to get prissy about it). Belle (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping, Belle.
    <I did specifically say that the creator should seek a 3rd opinion if they were not happy with my conclusion, and it looks like you have just provided one. I don't think that any one editor should have a veto, and if your considered conclusion is different from mine, then you have done the right thing to set out your asessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 28[edit]


Created by Frieda Beamy (talk). Self nominated at 17:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. Looking at the first source, Dup detector shows "people in need of shipping services with drivers haulers and transporters" in source and article. Checking two other main sources reveals no other significant close paraphrasing or copyvios. Well-cited. The hook is cited, but it would be better to have a link to the official DoT site as well as Escrow.com stating this to be the case. And I've reversed the order of the last two words in the hook - the trucks are empty, not the routes. I've also softened "connects" to "aims to connect", as I believe this is more accurate. I'm not keen on ALT1, as I imagine the plan is to make money, and carbon reductions are just a by-product. Bearing in mind that this article appears to be paid-for work (a fact that I feel should be more explicitly declared), this sort of greenwashing is not NPOV. Edwardx (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hook changes are fine. I rewrote the lead due to duping (there's always a fine line between avoiding duping and failing verification). I added a DOT source for the 29% sentence, although that might add "single-unit" as describing "truck" in either hook to be pedantic; the source uses 29% from 2007 and regards the number as still valid in Dec 2011. I don't intend to greenwash and so have looked for sentences to tone down as well, and I hope that answers any POV. Though the reviewer regarded it as ad-like during the rush to remove AFC backlog, that person reversed immediately upon a second glance through; I believe it properly reflects the sources.
    • As to paid-for work, this article was mostly done before the new terms of use, but I had already disclosed on my userpage, and later disclosed on article talk. To restate the disclosure more specifically, the person I work for is myself; then, I don't distinguish which article subjects are clients and which aren't because it's easier for others to just regard all article subjects as clients and affiliations and to judge the text as they wish. This seems to fit the new terms and what people have said about them; I want to keep within all the guidelines old and new. It does look like I've edited a lot of mainspace, because I edited drafts before they were promoted; but after promotion I only edit obvious balance items like fulfilling requests (such as right now). I have also linked each known article in the industry to the see alsos of the others, and am making improvements to the other articles as well to keep the whole topic area balanced. If there's anything else I need to answer I'll be happy to. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Plus it is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CitizenShipper Edwardx (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It was I who nominated it for afd as hopelessly promotional. I notice that the very hook is promotional. That someone claims to have a plan to reduce .... is not encyclopedic. Should he succeed in doing so, that would be a suitable hook DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg That's understandable; I have proposed in AFD that the topic be moved to Find sources: "Richard Obousy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images and so I think it would be within DYK rules to wait some days on this move proposal and then see if ALT0 or a new hook would suffice. Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for a shorter version appears to have been reached at AFD. Original hook ALT0 is still good. Instead of ALT1 we could say:

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg But if you wait a couple days I hope to have an even better hook. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg For DYK, while an article is at AfD, its nomination is put on hold. There shouldn't be any call for further review here until the AfD has been closed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 29[edit]

Tall: The American Skyscraper and Louis Sullivan

Created by I am One of Many (talk). Self nominated at 06:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg citation 8 has WP:PARAPHRASE, you can remove it for order to it to qualify -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC).
WP:Quotations are allowed in articles and one sentence is quoted from citation 8. The citation is now right after the quoted sentence, so all should be fine. I am One of Many (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed; review does not yet include checks for neutrality and close paraphrasing, both important DYK criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

James McLemore, Alabama Baptist Association, Caesar Blackwell, Antioch Baptist Church (Montgomery, Alabama)

Created by Drmies (talk). Self nominated at 04:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough at time of nomination, all except James McLemore long enough, all I don't see any mention of McLemore in citation #6, though the ABA is mentioned. No apparent paraphrasing policy issues, though I'm a bit concerned about the usage of FindAGrave.com and USGenWeb, among others. Hook is too long, QPQ pending. Cloudchased (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cloudchased. The hook is under 200 characters once you remove the "other" three article names (DYK supplementary rules). All articles should now be of appropriate length. Obviously I still need to review four articles, and I'm keeping the blank image: I hope to take pictures of the Blackwell grave tomorrow.

    As for these sources, sure, FindAGrave and USGenWeb aren't the greatest of sources, but they're not the worst either. Besides, the information derived from them is not a BLP violation, nor is it necessary to establish notability or overwhelmingly important facts. But if you like, we can have others look at it (Casliber, do you have a moment?) or I can post at RSN. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, this one I think we'd have trouble qualifying as a Reliable Source. Sorry. FindAGrave I think I can live with as it gets lot of official lists as well and has some vetting.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey; sorry, I won't be able to finish this review for the time being. Could someone else take a look, please? Cloudchased (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I was about to call for a new reviewer, but a check of the hook found that it is indeed too long, with 225 characters even when excluding three of the four bold links (I count the longest of them and discard the rest, and spaces are always counted). Please propose a new hook, and I'll be happy to add the "review again" icon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear BlueMoonset, I tweaked (and un-struckthrough) the hook: should be short enough. I still need to do one review, and I have the images, but still need to add one to the article and to this nomination. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks, Drmies. Revised hook is short enough (192 characters by my count). Will wait for the remaining (fourth) QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I added my last review. Let's drop the picture: the ones I took are not clear or pretty enough, really--I did not get a shot of Caesar Blackwell's gravestone. So let's get this one out of the way. Thanks for all your help, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New full review needed now that all four QPQs have been provided, the McLemore article has more than doubled in size, and other changes have been made. I've removed the placeholder for the picture. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Buffy hummingbird


5x expanded by Polbot (talk), Spirit of Eagle (talk). Nominated by Spirit of Eagle (talk) at 00:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg The article was just a few hundred characters and in the past few days has been expanded to about 2000. An academic source does confirm the hook. The citations are done correctly. The picture has already passed "featured picture" review, and seems in order. The hook is interesting, formatted correctly, and the right size. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Did you review the sources for close paraphrasing? Yoninah (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No. Looking again at the content around the hook, the original source says, "Buffy Hummingbirds are often aggressive and defend flower patches where they feed on nectar from plants like Agave and Hibiscus. They also east the juice and flesh of Armatocereus cactus fruit and frequently hawk for insects. During courtship displays, males dive down from above, creating an arc and vocalizing. These birds are considered short-distance migrants." The article says, "The buffy hummingbird is an omnivore. It consumes the nectar of the Agave and Hibiscus. It also consumes cactus flesh from species such as the Armatocereus. The bird is known to aggressively defend the plants it consumes. In addition to plant life, the bird also perches and hunts for insects near the ground." The argument for close paraphrasing would be the order and presentation of information about the agave, hibiscus, and the armatocereus. Spirit of Eagle, it is my opinion that just this part is not close paraphrasing, but if in the whole of your article all of your content was as close as this then after following the order and word choice of the original content for long enough then it might be close paraphrasing. Can you say something about how closely you followed the original sources to help guide our comments about the extent to which this should be considered as close paraphrasing? Also, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
When I was expanding the article, I attempted to avoid close paraphrasing and copy vios in general. I reworded and restructured most of the article a few minutes ago, so hopefully this will correct any close paraphrasing that I let in the first time around. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
With your recent edits I think the concerns about close paraphrasing are resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I think hook and article are somewhat inaccurate and I have tweaked the hook. This humming bird does not eat cacti in general but, according to the source, its primary diet is nectar and it also eats the juice and flesh of a particular species of cactus. And to say, as the article does, "The bird is known to hostilely defend the plants it consumes." makes it sound as if it eats the plants rather than sips the nectar. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I tagged that statement about hostile defense as needing a citation. I found nothing about this in the sources used for the sentences before and after. Please provide clarification and a citation here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the point about violent defense of flowers. Source number 2, the cited source, does actually state this, but I had badly muddled the meaning when I was writing the Wikipedia article. Hopefully, this will clear everything up. As for the cactus point, I'm really not sure how it is inaccurate. The hummingbird does in fact eat cacti, even if its primary diet is nectar. (Also, can I please go with "cactuses" in the hook? Its a valid word according to Merriam-Webster [12], and I feel that it will attract more interest). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I duplicated the citation after more sentences to make the source clearer. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The trouble with the article is that it is so factually inaccurate. For example, the lead states "... consumes cacti, flowers and insects" while the Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive states "Feeds on nectar of flowering Agave, Hibiscus, Lemairocereus, Melocactus and Opuntia". There are other inaccuracies. To use a hook that baldly states that the bird eats cactuses would be thoroughly misleading. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
How is this inaccurate? I've cited Neotropical Birds Online, a project of Cornell University, as the source and the claim that the bird eats cacti and insects is fully supported by the this source (which is of course cited in-line). This seems to be a rather reliable source, so I don't understand why the accuracy of it is under attack. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the cited source seems like a reliable source and that the claim cited to it seems to match the intent of the original source. I see no problem. Both sources could be correct. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, the Lemairocereus, Melocactus and Opuntia are all cactuses. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt1: that no one knows the total population of the buffy hummingbird (pictured)?

I've added a second source due to controversy over the cactus claim. This one is supported by the IUCN, so it should be reliable. I prefer the cactus hook, but I'll be happy to use this if it is more acceptable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the article to improve its accuracy and added some more information. I suggest
I like it. It feels a little sing-songy, which will no doubt increase clicks. For what its worth, this hook has my approval. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone else will be needed to approve the hook. I managed to obtain more details of the bird's description which I have added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check the new ALT2 hook and make any other checks needed. I struck the original hook, since ALT2 clarifies it. (Alt1 has not been reviewed, and explicitly needs to be if it is going to be used.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 30[edit]

Park an der Ilm

Shakespeare monument in the Park an der Ilm

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 12:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Newly expanded, well-cited, no copyvio. Hook is cited & interesting. AGF German-language sources. --Jakob (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello! I think the proper wording should be "monument to Shakespeare". Also, I think the hook would be even more intriguing if the phrase "an English garden in Weimar along the Ilm" were deleted altogether. This is the kind of explanation that readers should feel compelled to find out about when clicking. The Park an der Ilm will sound far less mysterious if we are immediately told what it is! So how about this ALT:
Special salutations to thoughtful and friendly Gerda! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The ALT is fine with me, and the other most welcome on the background of my alleged long history (or allegedly long history?) as an infobox warrior --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from prep as I think the hook statement is dubious. "Firsts" of this type are always dubious unless very well sourced and the sourcing for this statement isn't strong - also, there's at least one Shakespeare monument known to have been established in Europe prior to the one mentioned above, per this source. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. How about three "poets":
ALT2: ... that the Park an der Ilm, landscaped partly by Goethe, contains a monument to Shakespeare (pictured) by Lessing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine Goethe engaging in landscape gardening, and I'm having trouble verifying it in the supplied (German) source. Any chance you could give me an exact quote from source? Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I used that word because it hits at "English landscaped garden", but there are probably others for the fact that he influenced the development. The German Wikipedia has "Errichtung im 18. Jahrhundert unter Beteiligung von Johann Wolfgang von Goethe", this source says "Goethe's extensive landscaped park". No more time now, sorry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I added more sources for Goethe as the designer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT2 hook now that further sources have been added, to be sure that they and the article fully support the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 supported by citation, other DYK criteria met. Image appropriately licensed, no close paraphrasing etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Preparation (principle)

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self nominated at 11:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg There is a merge discussion underway regarding the article, the discussion taking place at Talk:Planning#Proposed_merge_of_preparation. I get the impression that this "preparation" article was thrown together from odd bits and pieces, a WP:Synthesis of sources, and does not merit its own topic. The merge question should be answered before this article is taken to DYK. If no merge is performed, the SYNTH problem will need to be sorted, most likely through AFD. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 1[edit]

Stratum (album)

  • ... that the music on Stratum by Drottnar (vocalist pictured) was described as "weird"?

Created by 3family6 (talk). Self nominated at 18:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment: The review to which this is sourced is in German, but I'm assuming that it is safe to put a translated word in quotes.
Dull hook. A lot of music gets described as weird, in a variety of languages. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggesting a new hook below. I'm removing the image since it depicts the vocalist and the hook below is about the guitarist, of whom there is no good picture.--¿3family6 contribs 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT 1 ... that when the recording sessions of Stratum by Drottnar began, guitarist Bengt Olsson left the band, only to rejoin it a few months later?

Steven the Sword Fighter

Improved to Good Article status by 23W (talk). Self nominated at 10:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on July 2[edit]

Fabien Cousteau, Mission 31, Troy (submarine), Shark: Mind of a Demon

Cousteau in 2010
  • Reviewed: Homage to Cézanne
  • Comment: Three more QPQs to be done shortly. Fabien Cousteau is probably heading to GA after a little more work, so any comments for improvement are welcome. Let me know if picture will be used and I'll make a tighter crop (head only).

5x expanded by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 16:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

Let me suggest turning it around and trimming, for more impact IMHO:

EEng (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 wording is better, thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe Quest

  • ... that multiple variations exist as to the basis upon which Joe Quest coined the sporting term "Charley horse"?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Word origin yarns are notoriously unreliable. That Quest in fact originated the term, and how, needs a reliable modern source (and I mean realiable), or the hook has to make it very clear that these are old stories, unverified. Article needs to reflect this as well. EEng (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the existence of "multiple variations", as noted in the hook, sufficiently denoted the lack of precision in the phrase's origin, but I have added the word "reportedly" to the hook as well. There are six reliable sources in the article crediting Quest with originating the term as a sporting injury. The most recent of these is a 2011 book that includes three pages devoted to the etymology of the phrase. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that multiple variations exist as to the basis upon which Joe Quest reportedly coined the sporting term "Charley horse"?
  • What Dickson (2011) makes abundantly clear is that the various stories involving quest are just a few of many competing theories, and that nobody knows. Try
  • ALT2 ... that stories involving Joe Quest are among the many theories about the unknown origin of the sporting term Charley horse?
EEng (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The alt 1 hook above is perfectly acceptable. Indeed, that is the language I proposed in modifying the original hook. EEng then reverted my modification of the hook and added it as alt 1. That works fine. Alt 2 is unnecessarily watered down. In fact, one of the more recent reviews (source 14) notes that the origin stories unrelated to Quest "can be discounted because the term was in use before the protagonist came to be." One such version attributed the phrase to Charlie Esper, a pitcher who reportedly walked "like a lame horse." However, Esper did not begin playing until 1890, by which time the phrase had already been well established in common usage. Alt 1 sufficiently addresses the lack of absolute certainty. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I "reverted [your] modification [to the original hook] and added it here as ALT1" because, yes, after discussion of the hook was underway you modified it in place, making the discussion up to that point incomprehensible.

IMO ALT1 is not so fine. Aside from the hopeless awkwardness of "multiple variations exist as to the basis upon which Joe Quest reportedly coined", reportedly is appropriate only for notions that are unconfirmed without being seriously contradicted; here it's apparent that there're a lot of amusing theories in competition, and the Quest ones are just a subset of those, even if the strongest subset. EEng (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. As noted above, the non-Quest variations have been discredited because they arose long after the fact. And, in any event, the proposed hook does not assert as a factual certainty that Quest coined the phrase, simply that he is reported to have done so, which is 100% factual and accurate. I do believe that my alt 1 hook is entirely appropriate and that you are being a tad ridiculous on this one. We've expressed our views. How about letting someone else give it a look? Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That most or all other explanations are clearly wrong doesn't make any of the Quest ones right. The two article sources with a claim to authoritativeness, [13] and [14] are clear that the Quest story is just a story, though one frequently repeated e.g. "Whether this story is true or not is uncertain". Again, reportedly should not be used where serious doubt exists. And yes, naturally it will be useful to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The second source you cite is the one that discounts the credibility of the non-Quest origins. And, of course, there are multiple reliable sources crediting Quest with originating the term, including The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract here (probably the single most authoritative work on baseball history), The Sporting Life here (one of the two most authoritative sources on 19th century baseball), the Boston Globe quoted here, and the Los Angeles Herald here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Further, your assertion that the word "reportedly" means that something is substantially free from doubt is simply contrary to the established meaning of that word, as evinced in common dictionary definitions. See: here ("according to a report" or "supposedly"), here ("according to report or rumor") and here ("according to rumour or report"). Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't say reportedly means something is substantially free from doubt; I said it "should not be used where serious doubt exists", and I'll clarify here that I probably should have said it "should not be used without further qualification where serious doubt exists. That's my objection to ALT1 -- it makes it sound like there's a "report" which is perhaps unconfirmed, but which (the reader will mistakenly infer from the omission of anything to the contrary) is without serious contradiction. EEng (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The hook doesn't make it "sound like" there's a report. There are "reports", many of them, and from reliable sources. That is what the word "reportedly" means in the English language. Further, the article details the other accounts. Accordingly, neither the hook nor the article is false, inaccurate, or misleading in the least. I appreciate your desire to keep DYK accurate, but you're quite off base on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You keep mischaracterizing what I say by quoting selectively. I didn't say the hook makes it "sound like there's a report" -- period -- but that it "makes it sound like there's a report which is without serious contradiction". It's not a question of being false, rather of being misleading. It's OK for a hook to be coyly ambiguous, but not misleading, which is out of bounds. I won't be responding further until others comment. EEng (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The alt 1 hook is not even "coyly ambiguous," and certainly not "misleading" or "out of bounds." It is 100% accurate, but I, too, will not respond until others have had a chance to comment. Cbl62 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Gaćinović

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self nominated at 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is barely long enough (counting the references). But it is appallingly written. Take for instance: "Since 1905 there were two secret student's societies in Mostar high school. One of them was "Matica", led by Dimitrije Mitrinović.[2] When he was seventeen year old he was a member of literature society "Matica" and published an interesting essay about Petar Kočić.[3]" The grammar is atrocious, the POV wording ("interesting") needs attribution or changing to something not POV. Same for: "In period between Autumn of 1910 and Summer of 1912 Gaćinović was a student of Vienna University.[7]" Or: "Gaćinović published condemnation of lack of idealism among younger generations who had studied at foreign universities and brought to their homes opportunism, petty individualism and conformity as main aim of their lives.[8]".
    In fact, the same goes for the hook: "that Vladimir Gaćinović was the real ideologue of the revolutionary movement Young Bosnia and tyrannicide as method of its political struggle?" -- what does that even mean? A verb is missing (which one?), or else the word "tyrannicide" is used without regard to its grammatical function.
    The whole article needs a rewrite, frankly, before it can be assessed for other DYK criteria. Dahn (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dahn for interesting review. I will try to resolve the issues you pointed to. Regarding the length, the article has 1,963 characters (not counting the references), which is much more than 1,500.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I apologize for that: I keep thinking that the limit is at 2,000 characters. Dahn (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Actually, most of the articles I nominate for DYK have much more than 2,000 characters, but in case of this article it is hard to further develop it in neutral way, taking in consideration complexity of this person and events. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Okay, the issues with the article itself were fixed (I want to congratulate the team of editors who took part in this effort), there remains the issue of the hook. I get now what it is trying to say, so I want to suggest:
Note, however, that other hooks variants may be more catchy. If I may propose:
Dahn (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting alternative hooks. The point is that The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, ... The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it,.... Therefore I still think that the original hook is better. If it is not clear enough, it may be corrected. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection. All of the alt hooks I proposed are cited with a reliable source and an inline citation. What's more, ALT 1 is largely a grammatical rephrasing of your original hook. Anyway, let others decide. Dahn (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check the various hooks, and say which ones are interesting, neutral, in the article, and sourced per DYK requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Shrenik Kasturbhai Lalbhai

Created by Nizil Shah (talk). Self nominated at 18:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

  • The article is new and long enough.
  • QPQ done.
  • The article needs copyediting for grammar.
  • No plagiarism found.
  • Article has at least one inline citation per para.
  • Both the hooks check out with The Hindu source. I have not checked for other issues. After you have copyedited the article please ping me so that I can continue the review. I have checked only the 1st ref till now.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svgCopy-editing for grammar is required.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your review, Skr15081997. I am copyediting myself and requested other editor for help. I will ping you when its done. Regards -Nizil (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 3[edit]

The Dreft Star Playhouse

  • Comment: Producers of The Dreft Star Playhouse sought to elevate the quality of daytime radio by adapting romantic movies to 15-minute-segment serials, competing with existing soap operas and other formats. One old-time radio source called the genre "prestige drama."

Created by Teblick (talk). Self nominated at 20:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New (3rd), just long enough, neutral, can't check for copyvio due to offline sources, no QPQ necessary, though you'll need one next time. Now, a few things: (1) Rare? How is this sourced? Comes off as non-neutral. Also, many of the quotes can be paraphrased into new words, and one sentence with a quote doesn't have a direct citation. (Also it says very little about the actual work of the group—what kinds of radio programs and popular in what ways? Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  05:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I must apologize for my shortcomings as cited in the paragraph above. I find myself still learning about Wikipedia with each article that I write. I will try to respond to your comments below:

  • "Rare" is my own evaluation. I have been unable to find mention of any other daytime program like The Dreft Star Playhouse, but I also have not been able to find a source that specifically called it rare or unique (which actually seems to me to be the case). How does one prove a negative -- that nothing like it was produced in the history of broadcast radio? If I can't mention that the program was rare -- if not unique -- then that eliminates the hook, so the nomination can be withdrawn from consideration for DYK. I will accept that fact.
  • Regarding the quotations, here are my thoughts: 1) "Prestige drama" is a term that I had not encountered before doing research for this article. I think it has a significance that I cannot match in my own words. 2) I considered rewording "attempted to accomplish in a five-times-a-week soap-opera format what Lux Radio Theatre had done in the nighttime format," but I couldn't come up with wording as effective as the source's without plagiarizing. 3) The same reason as in 2) applied to Dunning's quotation. 4) How could I effectively convey the meaning of "ran two months in daily quarter-hour doses" without verging on plagiarism? I couldn't think of a way. 5) The expression "an ambitious undertaking" is Dunning's opinion. I I couldn't state that on my own. 6) I could have paraphrased the reference to salaries in "up to $3,000 per week for 'name' talent," but I feel that the "name" part of the quote adds impact. Again, that is Dunning's opinion, which I couldn't state on my own.
  • You cited "one sentence with a quote doesn't have a direct citation." Were you referring to the first sentence under "Productions and players"? The reference at the end of the last bulleted item was meant to encompass all of the text in the section. If I need a separate citation for the first sentence, I will be glad to add one. With some of my earlier articles, I was chastised for repeating citations unnecessarily, so I have since tried to streamline them. I can easily put another Dunning citation at the end of that sentence, however.
  • You wrote, "it says very little about the actual work of the group—what kinds of radio programs..." My first paragraph says, "The Dreft Star Playhouse was a daytime radio program in the United States, presenting adaptations of romantic movies in serial form." How much more specific should I be about the kinds of programs?
  • You also asked, "...popular in what ways?" After reading the article again, I can't see that I used the word popular or implied that the program was popular. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.Eddie Blick (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Your response is longer than the article! If no source says that it's rare, it would be OR to come to that conclusion ourselves. It's not to prove a negative—if some reliable source about radio history makes the claim that it's rare, then we can cite it. If not, we don't mention it. You can replace the hook with something else, though. The quote paraphrasing was just a suggestion—no obligation to a DYK review. Every time someone is directly quoted (with quotation marks), there needs to be a ref immediately following that sentence, even if it repeats the ref at the end of the ¶ (see WP:MINREF). I was curious about what kinds of romantic movies (again, no DYK obligation to address). czar  04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To avoid any slipups I'm striking the original hook right now because there's no way "rare" can fly without a source. EEng (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 4[edit]

Nila (Ramayana)

Nila, Balinese painting

  • ... that Nila (pictured), leader of the monkey army, is said to have urinated on the heads of the demon Ravana and disturbed his sacrifice?

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 15:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New, long enough, cited and no close paraphrase issues. Hook verified online in Google books.(though I corrected the page number) QPQ done. Image is in public domain.-Nizil (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion:As many people would not be familiar with Nila and Ravana. I suggest alternative hook which may describe them better. -Nizil (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT: ... that, as described in Krittivasi Ramayan, the monkey warrior Nila (pictured), urinated on the demon king Ravana and disturbed his yajna ritual?

Articles created/expanded on July 5[edit]

Lena Nyadbi

Lena Nyadbi standing in front of her most notable work, "Dayiwul Lirlmim". (Paris, June 2013)

Created by Bilby (talk), (talk). Nominated by Josve05a (talk) at 12:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg At 417 B, this article is currently much too short for DYK where the requirement is for a length of at least 1500 B. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Cwmhiraeth: I have reverted to the former version of the article and I take responsibility for everything per WP:BANREVERT. (tJosve05a (c) 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
We've been discussing this on Wikipeda talk:DYK in regard to accepting DYKs predominately written by banned users. Again, this is an article by the banned editor Russavia. While we don't have a consensus one way or the other so far - we may end up needing an RfC - this process of highlighting the work of banned users on the front page isn't something we should be encouraging. - Bilby (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been following the discussion that User:Bilby talks about. I think he should step back from the issue. Completely. Bilby appears to have created this article by following User:Russavia's edits on Commons. It would appear Bilby has done so to prevent the very appearance at DYK this article is now up for. This is not healthy behavior for an editor to be engaging in. It is also not healthy, nor good for the encyclopedia, for Bilby to revert an excellent article simply because the person is banned. Worse still, Bilby used his admin tools to protect the article. I can't fathom why Bilby would basically destroy content like he has. Regardless, User:Josve05a has confirmed, by way of reverting, that the content is good. I have looked at the article. It is well written, is properly sourced, is on a subject that suffers from bias on Wikipedia, etc, etc. It is a good article and would make for an interesting front page appearance. DYK is not for recognising editors, but their content. I would be happy to see this at DYK; it is everything that is wanted for the DYK section. (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Random outside IP address? I'll AGF and assume so. However, most of the above is incorrect. The article is not protected, I didn't expect to see this at DYK and wasn't trying to prevent that outcome, and Russavia is community banned, in which case the community has stated, in the strongest possible way it can, that Russavia's edits are no longer welcome on this project.
That said, the issue is simply that we shouldn't be highlighting the work of socks of banned editors through DYK. It is not in DYK's interests, nor in Wikipedia's. But I'll leave it to the DYK community to decide, while we try to work out what the community consensus will be moving forward. - Bilby (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bilby: You can assume good faith, but I shall not. Due to reasonable suspicion, I can say that I believe that that IP was used by Russavia despite his ban from Wikipedia, but that shall not (and has not) anything to do with this DYK, and until a consensus has been made on the talk page (which I don't see happen anytime in the near future) that shouldn't have any inpact on this DYK. Happy editing! (tJosve05a (c) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 6[edit]

House of Kamehameha

King Kamehameha III at the age of eighteen

5x expanded by Mark Miller (talk). Self nominated at 06:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Both hooks are a bit wordy without much flow. How about:
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately this article does not qualify for DYK because it has been insufficiently expanded, going from 3156 B on 4th July, before the expansion started, to 11 kB now. It would need to reach 15+ kB to qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Saints Row: The Third downloadable content, Enter the Dominatrix

Mainspaced by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

Development of Deus Ex

Warren Spector at GDC 2010

Mainspaced by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

Development of Fez

Development team of Fez at 2012 GDC IGF

Mainspaced by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article was moved into mainspace on 6th July and is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are reliably sourced and the image is suitably licensed. QPQ has been done and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mikengreg, Solipskier, Gasketball

Mainspaced by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

  • OK, let's start at the beginning The following has been checked in this review by Matty.007
  • QPQs all done
  • Articles mainspaced by Czar on 6 July (first 2) and 8 July (Mikengreg), and nominated on 13 July (i.e. 7 days)
  • Article sizes in bytes are:
  • Solipskier: 6626
  • Gasketball: 6905
  • Mikengreg: 12,643
  • I will continue this review soon, but bear with me (large article*3). I will go through each article individually from now onwards. Thanks, Matty.007 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I haven't worked in videos, but this one seems quite long (4 minutes) for a main page thing and is quite repetative. If you want it approved, bearing in mind it may well not be used, I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me how it's fair use from YouTube, as I don't quite follow. Thanks, Matty.007 16:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Greg gets 59m high score in Solipskier.webm No one's obligated to watch the whole thing through the same way no one's obligated to click through the pictures or GIFs or whatnot. The video was released by the game's creator (see OTRS permission). czar  16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so video good to go if wanted. Thanks, Matty.007 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Mikengreg is OK: long enough, neutral, no copyvios in few spotchecks, so all looks good there. Thanks, Matty.007 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

EarthBound, fandom, fan translation, Marcus Lindblom

Mother series cosplayers at 2010 Anime Expo

Mainspaced/GA by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

Jeff Dexter

  • ... that Jeff Dexter was banned from London's Lyceum for his obscene dancing of the newly-arrived Twist, then hired by them two weeks later as a dancer?
  • Reviewed: Korean melon
  • Comment: Hook tweaking and ALTs welcome

Created by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

I think we need quotes on "obscene":

  • ALT1 ... that London's Lyceum banned Jeff Dexter for his "obscene" dancing of the newly-arrived Twist, then hired him as a dancer two weeks later?

EEng (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • ALT1 flows better, so I'm striking my original hook. Edwardx (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think "obscene" needs quotes but I edited to attribute the remark directly to Dexter as his opinion. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't his opinion, rather his statement of the opinion of Lyceum mgmt. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) he says "my dancing was obscene" and while there's a lot of allowance to be made for shifting standards and so on, I don't think we want to be stating, as flat fact, that this LP (that's Living Person, not Long Playing record) did something obscene in his youth, nor that WP subscribes to particular standards of what is or was obscene which allows it to label things, in a factual way, as obscene. It's not a big deal, but do you see my point? EEng (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I changed it to "According to Dexter, the management thought the dance obscene." to make clear that it was his opinion that they thought it obscene. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I was only talking about the hook. EEng (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How about:
  • ALT2 "... that London's Lyceum banned Jeff Dexter for what they thought was his "obscene" dancing of the newly-arrived Twist, then hired him as a dancer two weeks later?"
I understand your concerns but I don't think there is any realistic chance of him being offended, not given that he was the source of the description in the first place. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we're in violent agreement. The quotes in ALT1 telegraph that "obscene" was the Lyceum's opinion, so the additional verbiage of ALT2 isn't needed. But I leave it to you to decide. EEng (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed of article and hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mihai Ralea

Ralea at his desk, circa 1960

Created by Dahn (talk). Self nominated at 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

Created by Ian Rose (talk). Self nominated at 13:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. NPOV. Well-cited, including the good hook. The hook is cited by a primary source, but there is no reason to believe it is not reliable. Spot checks reveal no close paraphrasing or copyvios. Edwardx (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • With the most profound apologies if this turns out to be a false alarm, I've pulled this from prep because it sets my Spidey Sense tingling, in that I'm skeptical that the source describes hot water and telephones as "basic amenities" at a 1940 flying school in Queensland (or wherever it was -- that article's very confusing what with No. 3 being disbanded in Victoria to form No. 2 after No. 1 1/2 was added to No. 1/2 in New South Wales...). I'd like to hear a quote from the secondary source. EEng (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the source (actual images of "Operations Record Book" pages) is available online, EEng, it's easy enough to check that among the items listed in the "Main deficiencies at 31/1/40:" section are "No kitchen, hot water services, street lighting." and "No telephone system." I'll leave it to you to unwind the pull. (If it's the word "amenities" that you're objecting to, it's an easy change to something like "items".) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Before I pulled I tried to find the source online -- can you provide a link? And yes, I said straight out that it's the phrase basic amenities I find problematic, because I was pretty sure that at World War II Australian training camps hot water and telephones were "basic amenities" about as much as complementary turndown service and chocolates on the pillows. And no, I won't unwind the pull, because this kind of nonsense SYNTH is the bread and butter of what's wrong with DYK; the nom and reviewer should come up with a new hook that's actually supported by the source and is more interesting than that army trainees somewhere were brutalized with cold showers. EEng (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't rocket science: FN7 in Notes, which supports the hook phrase (the article uses "basic infrastructure including hot water, a kitchen, and a telephone system"), is to "Royal Australian Air Force (1939–45), p. 134". The "Works consulted" section just below it, which includes said "Royal Australian Air Force (1939–45)", has a link with the "Unit History Sheets: Nos. 1–7 Elementary Flying Training Schools". I clicked on it, and found myself on page 1 of 853. Entering 134 in the page number field takes you to the image of a log book page which has what I quoted above and more besides. While "amenities" may not have been a good choice in the hook wording, the essence is accurate: the camp had what was, by the military's own reckoning, a number of deficiencies including the lack of hot water, kitchen, and phones. Since I said I had found the source and confirmed the information, pulling the hook again—especially without the word "amenities" that you objected to and with the edit summary you used—is disappointing but not surprising, nor is the sudden introduction of the additional justification that the hook is insufficiently interesting to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, somehow I got on the Stephens source by mistake. The word basic is completely unjustified. Just because the log noted telephones aren't present doesn't mean they were considered "basic". This material's appearance in the article might be OK given the way it's used there, but as used in the hook it's classic OR and SYNTH that completely misleads the reader. As for "uninteresting", the original hook at least appeared to say that this one facility was different in a special way -- no hot water etc. -- but since it turns out this might, for all we know, have been common, we're left with the mere statement that Camp Godforesaken had cold showers -- and that IS uninteresting. EEng (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng, I think you're making a mountain out of molehill. If you don't like "basic amenities" then take it out and say "lacked hot water, a kitchen, and a telephone system" -- I really don't give a damn, but let's not have wild accusations of OR and "misleading the reader". Having taken well around 75 articles on Australian military subjects through DYK and the majority of those all the way to FA, I've seen a great many unit histories as well as other sources, and found nothing to suggest that cold water, no cooking facilities and no phones were par for the course at a training school. If they were, I'm quite sure the unit history wouldn't have highlighted them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
"I've seen a great many unit histories as well as other sources, and found nothing to suggest ... I'm quite sure ..." -- I'm going to give you the complement of assuming that, on reconsideration, you'll see that this statement is of exactly the kind against which OR was meant to guard. The reviewer's comment "The hook is cited by a primary source, but there is no reason to believe it is not reliable" shows a complete misunderstanding of OR and PRIMARY -- the question isn't whether they're reliable, but rather whether we can know how to interpret them properly. In this case, for example, the hook jumps to the conclusion that because no-hot-water etc. is mentioned, it must have been an unusual condition.

As for wanting me to fix the hook, when I've done that nominators have been upset that they didn't like the revised hook. It's no big deal. Just come up with a new hook supported by secondary sources see below, with no OR, and everything'll be fine. EEng (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, if you are now the sole arbiter of what passes muster at DYK then I suppose I'm wasting my time, but if that's not the case, I'll see what consensus throws up. I think most people of normal intelligence would consider these items pretty basic but by all means let's not make assumptions. The hook as it stands states the facts very simply and unless someone wants to suggest a better one I'll stick with it. When you've written as many of these training school articles as I have you get a bit bored quoting statistics on the number of graduates or how many accidents they had. The reason I chose this little nugget is precisely because it's unusual among the training schools I've researched. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For crying out loud, don't change the hook in place, because that makes nonsense of the discussion so far. I've added your new hook above as ALT1.

One of the things that always amazes me is the amount of effort put into a problematic hook when better hooks are available. How about

  • ALT2: ... that in the months after it opened, trainees at [school] made do without beds, desks, hot water, blackboards, typewriters, flags, maps, charts, or "clothing other than stockings"?

EEng (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng is not sole arbiter of what passes muster at DYK, and hooks do not have to be supported by secondary sources.

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer required for ALT1 hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

HEye is not sole arbiter of what hooks are still under discussion. (I've removed his stikeout of ALT2.) I should have said supported by secondary sources as necessary, sorry. But the fact remains that ALT0 was way out of bounds. EEng (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Reinstated the strikeout of ALT2. Forgot to say that it cannot be used because it isn't mentioned in the article. Face-smile.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Re-removing strikeout of ALT2. Forgot to say that it can be used if someone wants to add the material to the article. Face-smile.svg EEng (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer still needed for ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

1930 Atlantic hurricane season

  • ... that during the 1930 Atlantic hurricane season, only one tropical cyclone made landfall, but it resulted in an death toll estimated to be between 2,000 and 8,000?

Improved to Good Article status by 12george1 (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Promoted to Good Article status on July 6. Article is neutrally written, long enough and uses extensive in-line citations. A QPQ is not required as this is not a self-nomination. Spot-checking doesn't turn up instances of unduly close paraphrasing, copyright violation or plagiarism. Both of the proposed hooks are short enough, interesting and verified with reliable sources, principally the NOAA site. I have taken the liberty of changing "an death toll" to "a death toll" in the alt 1 hook. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've returned this from prep as I can't verify that this was the only hurricane of the year to make landfall, that statement is sourced to a raw database file which I have no idea how to interpret. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg That's fine Gatoclass. We are only interested in the first and third columns of that file. The first column has either the date in YYYYMMDD format or the hurricane number, and the third column has an L if the coordinates of that line means it made landfall. If you scroll through the file to the entries starting 1930 you will see that there is only one L in the third column for that year's data under the tracking data for the second hurricane. (Now I am expert in HURDAT data and baseball statistics. Next KUNG-FU!) Belle (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
At the very least, a note should be added to the article to that effect, because readers will have no more clue to interpreting the data there than I do. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Paging 12george1. Please come to the white phone in reception where you a have a call about interpreting HURDAT2 data. I've add an external link to the pdf explaining the tracking data format, but maybe you want to move it somewhere that is better connected to the data file. (I still haven't got to grips with citation formats, maybe I should do that rather than pushing hands. Be water, my friend) Belle (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
12george1, are you going to do anything on this, or shall we close the nomination? Belle (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 7[edit]

Camino al Amor

5x expanded by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Camino al Amor - sufficient size, expansion started on July 7, nominated on July 1. Source one (AGF on Spanish language) says they were costars in the 2012 show. A couple minor things: the hook is a little unclear, made me think they were playing a couple in the new one? The article doesn't say that, so the word "already" should probably be taken out. The word "been" should probably be changed to "played". And I don't know why "Dulce amor" is bolded, it doesn't meet DYK criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. I have reworded the hook and removed the bold on "Dulce amor" (it was just an accident). And yes, they are playing a couple in the new telenovela as well. It's just said at different points of the newspaper article, first they talk about the curent work, and later they mention their previous work. "Sin extenderme demasiado sobre la historia en cuestión (que ya presentó una galería de prácticamente quince personajes), el eje del conflicto es un antiguo amor interrumpido entre Rocco (Sebastián Estevanez) y Malena (Carina Zampini)." means more or less "Without detailing much about the aforementioned story (which has already showed a gallery of almost fifteen characters), the axis of the conflict is an old interrupted love between Rocco (Sebastián Estevanez) and Malena (Carina Zampini)." Besides, there's that big photo of both of them at the begining of the article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Chlemoutsi keep

  • ... that the Chlemoutsi castle (pictured) from the early 1220s is perhaps the finest fortification of the early period of Frankish rule in Greece preserved in the country today?

Improved to Good Article status by Cplakidas (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 00:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Passed GA within timescale. AGF offline ref for hooks (and for online foreign-language ref for ALT2 below). Picture properly licensed but not very clear - I would recommend changing it, especially since decent alternatives are available on Commons, e.g. File:Chlemoutsi2.JPG. Spot-checked some of the French source, and no copyvio concerns. A very nice article. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2:... that the Chlemoutsi castle (pictured) has been described as "one of the most important and best-preserved castles in Greece"?
  • Agreed regarding the picture, unless the nominator has something else in mind. Constantine 07:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, and for suggestions about the picture. I have changed to a different picture. Your suggested picture would be even better (for DYK), but is currently not used in the article. Oceanh (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added the relevant picture, and given Oceanh's comment I took the liberty of chaning it in the hook as well. Thanks to both of you. Constantine 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)



  • ... that the Raphinae, a clade of flightless birds (dodo pictured), became extinct through hunting by humans and predation by introduced non-native mammals?
  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Reid,iain james (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I suggest "ALT1: ...that a clade of flightless birds called Raphinae (dodo pictured), became extinct as a consequence of overhunting by humans and introduction of non-native predators?". IJReid (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing the ALT1 hook, which I think is better than mine. I strike out the original hook, supporting ALT1 instead. Oceanh (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It is completely inappropriate for you to be reviewing your own article, IJReid, and even more to be approving it. Please don't ever add a tick to your own article again. (Supplying alternate hooks is fine.) New, independent reviewer needed to give this nomination a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Cudgel War

  • ... that the Cudgel War was the largest peasant rebellion ever to occur in Finland?
  • ALT1: ... that cudgels were the main weapon of the peasants fighting in the Cudgel War?

5x expanded by Catlemur (talk). Self nominated at 19:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Some of the sources are in Finnish. I looked at the main English language source and found there were large scale copy and paste copyright violations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg In addition to the significant copyvio noted above, the article is not a 5x expansion. The article's size was 3,298 prose characters prior to expansion, which would require a size of 16,490 prose characters, but the article is only 10,263 prose characters now, and will be quite a bit below 9,000 once the copied text has been deleted. I very much doubt it will be possible to achieve a 5x expansion under the circumstances, but since Catlemur hadn't been pinged, I'm going to await a response on whether the article will be further expanded, though I've asked Nikkimaria to check the article and do whatever's necessary to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's rules on avoiding copyright violations. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mya (program)

  • ... that Mya choked up halfway through a service for president Bill Clinton?

Created by Freikorp (talk). Self nominated at 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • "Service" makes no sense here -- I thought it must mean a religious service. From the article, the right word is demonstration (or we could say demo to be hip):
ALT1... that Mya choked up halfway through a demo for president Bill Clinton?
EEng (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Demonstration is a more accurate word for sure, I was hoping to use the word service (noun - synonyms include 'performance of one's duties' [15], which I think can technically work here) for its innuendo effect, but happy with your ALT1. Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Too good to pass up
EEng (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this "Carry On DYK?" Yak-yak-yak. Ooooh Maaatron. Belle (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol voting keep.svg New enough, long enough, neutral enough, no close paraphrasing or copyvio in the sources I could check so I'm assuming the others will be OK too. ALT1 is fine (although "chok[ed] up halfway" is quoted in the article it would look a bit odd here). ALT2 is too much (won't SOMEBODY think of the children?!!?) Belle (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I forgot to say that the article finishes abruptly with no explanation as to why it was cancelled or whether it actually was (not a DYK matter but it leaves the reader unsatisfied) Belle (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

From your tone it sounds like you believe there to be some inadvertent sexual meaning which makes the hook inappropriate for children. If so, can you please explain? I can be rather dense in such matters so please be as explicit as possible. Link to appropriate images if necessary. EEng (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I would explain but it is time for tiffin. Belle (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't choke on the cucumber... sandwiches. EEng (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and copyedit Belle. As per the articles talk page, I am aware of the articles shortfall in not having any information on the programs cancellation. Unfortunately I just can't find any information on the cancellation; it seems to have just quietly disappeared after so much effort and advertising. I feel unsatisfied not knowing exactly what happened as well. EEng, now that the original hook has been approved, do you think we should change ALT1 from 'choked up halfway through a demo' to 'malfunctioned during a demonstration', that way we would have one innuendo hook and one hook that focuses on being as clear as possible. As per Belle's comments, ALT1 does look a bit odd as it currently stands. I loved your ALT2 btw, I literally laughed for a good couple minutes. I hope the admins choose to use that one anyway =D. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I do try to spread joy and laughter wherever I go. EEng (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Improved to Good Article status by Double sharp (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 09:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I've lowercased neptunium and introduced the list of allotropes with a dash. Also adding ALT2A.
ALT2A:... that neptunium is found in at least three allotropes—​one orthorhombic, one tetragonal, and one body-centered cubic?

EEng (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for improving the orthography, and for supplying an ALT2A hook which reads better than mine. Oceanh (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You'll get my bill. EEng (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this again I think ALT1 is more clickworthy. ALT2/2A sound like a math lecture. EEng (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol voting keep.svg It's new and long enough. AGF on sources as they are mostly offline. I think there are more catchy hooks though; here are a few possibilities:

Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 8[edit]

Juan Puig

Created by ComputerJA (talk). Self nominated at 18:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

Dull hook. Lots of people debut in athletic competitions all the time. What's special about him? Tell us. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Do you think ALT1 is a better hook? Puig is among the few fighters born in Mexico to compete in the UFC. ComputerJA () 04:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Weeelll ... eighth isn't that special. But ... here's one that I saw in the article that might work:
ALT2: .... that Mexican mixed martial artist Juan "Fénix" Puig practiced kundalini yoga as a boy before taking up MMA? Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Case: Meh, why not. Thank you for the review. ComputerJA () 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review of article and hooks needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 10[edit]

Grizzled tree-kangaroo

Grizzled tree-kangaroo

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Expansion OK, time limit for expansion OK, neutral enough, no plagiarism or copyvio. It's a pity that all the information available on its history in captivity has not been included but that is not a DYK matter. This would be good to go, but I'm going to suggest an ALT which I think is slightly hookier, so somebody else will have to give it the green tick (I've tried waving my arms, shouting and flashing a bit of leg at other nominations with no success in attracting a green ticker, so this time I'm going to throw wads of money in the air. Look, 100-dollar bills!).
  • ALT1 ... that although the grizzled tree-kangaroo (pictured) feeds mainly on leaves and figs in the wild, in captivity it has been fed boiled eggs, biscuits and sardines? Belle (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with ALT1 (which I have tweaked a bit). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The reference about feeding an animal that in the wild lived in leaves and trees such things as sardines and boiled eggs in the zoo is very strange. From the context it seems that this was done in the 19th century, the source (a random webs.com site with no author or affiliation, are these things suddenly considered reliable?) is very confusing. I suspect nowadays no one would do such a thing, it sounds like a recipe for gastric upset and worse to feed a herbivore a protein-rich diet. Can't you all do better? You guys really need to exercise editorial judgement. (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for dipping your beak in, honey. Despite undermining your credibility a bit with that, I'm sure you have a point. Not about the feeding (as while the strange captive diet is almost certainly historical the hook doesn't make any claim that it is current practice; "it has been" not "it is"), but about the suitability of the website as a source. It seems rather detailed for it to be a hoax, but that doesn't mean it is reliable under Wikipedia's rules. Cwmhiraeth, can you say why it should be considered a suitable source? Belle (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The proposed hook fact was a bit trivial and I have removed the bit about zoos from the article. Nevertheless, the information in the Papuan Mammals source is well referenced and should be acceptable on the matter of diet in the wild etc. Suggesting a different hook:
I prefer ALT2. Kangaroos in general can hop but most are not agile enough to climb trees let alone leap from one tree to another. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but that's kind of what I had in mind in shortening the hook. I think readers will be startled enough by the image of a kangaroo jumping among trees that they'll want to click -- to my mind mentioning that they do so with agility almost waters it down. (Although, on the other hand, if an RS said "The creature's tree-to-tree hopping is, at best, very clumsy" then that should definitely be included -- the only thing more amusing than the image of a kangaroo jumping from tree to tree is that of a kangaroo jumping clumsily from tree to tree.) But I leave it to you. EEng (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Just struck the original and ALT1 hooks, since the captivity food information is no longer in the article. Belle, since your ALT1 hook is no longer in play and you did the original review, would you be willing to please check the subsequent ALT hooks? We do tend to give some deference to the nominator when it comes to hooks, so long as their proposal is accurate and interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 11[edit]

Remedios Circle

Buildings around Remedios Circle

  • ... that Remedios Circle (pictured), now considered the center of Manila's nightlife, was originally a cemetery?
  • Reviewed: Doing...

Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self nominated at 17:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Hook is fine, sourced, length is fine. The article is long enough and new enough. All that is needed is QPQ and it can go forward. Correct me if I've used the wrong symbol here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the correct symbol while you're waiting for something. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ștefan Baciu

5x expanded by Dahn (talk). Self nominated at 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Can you quote the text from the article re "too anticommunistic" (which I think should be anticommunist BTW). I can't find it. EEng (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Heh. "Such ideas alarmed the CIA, since they risked alienating the anticommunist left. John Hunt and Keith Botsford repeatedly asked Baciu to focus on anti-Casto, rather than "right-wing", propaganda (Hunt referred to Baciu as "a right-wing democratic socialist", a Betancourt associate, and a "maniac")." And: "Allegedly, Baciu found himself threatened by the Cuban Intelligence Directorate. However, it was Baciu's extreme anticommunism that prompted Hunt to demand his resignation and appoint Vicente de Paulo Barretto as the new CCF General Secretary. Baciu later commented that the CCF had committed "suicide" by moderating its tone, noting that its "constructive dialogue with proven communists" was a moral victory for "Eurocommunism"." These quotes, you will note, have several citations right after the fact(s). On the "anti-communistic": since this is as an adjective, I thought it would make more sense to use the clearly adjectival form. I get 83 hits for "too anti-communistic". But yes, whatever works. Dahn (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It's always best if the article text supporting the hook can be located via a search for at least one of the obvious keywords in the hook -- in this case either CIA or anti-communist. EEng (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but in this case it was utterly impractical, since the story is rather longish, contains several important facts, and intertwines with other significant events in Baciu's life. I don't feel that it can be argued here that the slightly different wording of my hook vis-a-vis what I put in the article adds subjectivity or unreliability, or even interpretation: the fact is that Baciu was fired because the CIA felt his anticommunism diminished the importance of the CCF, which was supposed to be inclusive of the anti-Stalinist left. (The hook should be interesting regardless of how we feel about the CIA. I personally commend it for initiatives such as the CCF, and I find that being paid by the CIA to express oneself freely was always a better choice than to have been paid by the KGB to spew out lies.)
In any case, I feel it's a technicality, and encourage reviewers not to expect the hook to parrot the text -- that would greatly reduce the fun of it, on both sides.
For the CIA quote: "The [Brazilian chapter of the CCF] was in part funded by the Central Intelligence Agency, through its Paris agent, John Hunt (with whom Baciu corresponded), and answered directly to the Spaniard Julián Gorkin." Though, frankly, it appears that Mr. Hunt was only ever culturally relevant as a CIA liaison -- that is the only thing history remembers him for. So it's not that big a secret in 2014. Dahn (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I didn't mean to put you to so much work. EEng (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Končar-class missile boat

Improved to Good Article status by Saxum (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 11:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Good article status bestowed on July 11, satisfying recency requirement. Article is long enough and uses in-line citations. No QPQ needed since this is not a self-nomination. The hook is short enough, modestly interesting (subjectively). spot checking doesn't reveal any plagiarism/copyright issues. The problem I have is in verifying the hook fact, which is not stated in the article. Also, the bits about the Montenegren navy seem to be in the future tense, referring to plans. There doesn't appear to be anything in the article saying that any of the boats are presently in use by Montenegren forces. Cbl62 (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The table states "In service with the Montenegrin Navy[11]". Thanks, Matty.007 09:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The table says that, but the body of the article says that the ships "are planned to be modified as patrol boats for service with the Montenegrin Navy." The ships can't be both "in service" and "planned to be modified" (forward-looking phrasing) to be in service. So, there appears to be an internal contradiction between the table and text. This should be cleared up. Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
They are serving with the Montenegrins whilst being incapicitated during modification. They aren't non-Montenegrin ships because work is being done on them. I could change serve to operate though if it is preferable. Thanks, Matty.007 11:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Childcare infection

  • ... that infection in childcare is a risk when groups of children meet for school or daycare, but hygiene reduces its prevalence?

Created by Bluerasberry (talk). Self nominated at 16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

  • From a brief look at the article I worry that the term childcare infection is a neologism -- it doesn't occur in the title of any of the cited sources. If I'm wrong the nominator will easily be able to shore that up in the article text and sourcing. EEng (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng I changed the name to "Infection in childcare" per WP:NEOLOGISM. Because there is no term for this, many phrases are used, and I listed them at Talk:Infection_in_childcare. "Infection in childcare" appears more than "childcare infection", so that must be a better name. I am not sure of the best name but I tried to choose something appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like other editors to look at Talk:Infection in childcare and opine. EEng (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 12[edit]

Sinaloan mastiff bat

  • ... that the males and females of Sinaloan mastiff bat can't be differentiated on the basis of the breadth of their braincases?

5x expanded by Anaxial (talk). Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 13:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

Edward Joshua Cooper

  • ... that Irish politician Edward Joshua Cooper's private observatory in County Sligo made the first discovery of an asteroid from Ireland?
  • ALT1:... that in 1831 Irish politician Edward Joshua Cooper opposed parliamentary reform, claiming that it would cause "the total annihilation of Protestantism"?
  • ALT2:... that in 1831 Irish politician Edward Joshua Cooper's private astronomical observatory contained the largest lens ever made?
  • Reviewed: Armonía Somers

Created by BrownHairedGirl (talk). Self nominated at 17:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg All ok, & ready to go, except that I think "discovery of an asteroid from Ireland" needs clarifying; it's alarming to think of pieces of the auld sod in the asteroid belt. There are various options like "new a. discovered by observation from I". Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Floortje Mackaij

Mackaij at the 2013 World Championships

Created by Sander.v.Ginkel (talk). Self nominated at 20:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

  • 1: Article created on nomination date, meets New criteria. About 2000 prose characters so long enough. Sourcing appears good for DYK, though recommend trying to get some more secondary sources for future article growth.
  • 2: Hook is short enough. Fact is citable to athlete's own webpage, but I can verify against other sources eg [16]. Hook content is interesting.
  • 3: Picture is free and from commons, and shows person directly. Nominator only has 2 DYK per QPQ tool, so no need for a review here.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Appears ready to go --MASEM (t) 17:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I just checked several statements from the different sources (having to go through Google Translate) but even considering the langauage translation, nothing appears off (eg not close paraphrasing). The only problem with the source I linked is that it is not quite independent as it is the newsletter of the current cycling team that she is on. But given this is a personal fact that I've seen repeated in different phrasing from her personal bio page, the team's current info page, this newsletter, and few other places, as well as reading of other speed skaters using cycling for off-season training, I don't think there's a problem with the fact (it's something she can personally related); the sourcing concern is only with growing out the article as to not rest too much on her personal webpage for some details. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I started searching for some more sources confirming that she started with speed skating. I think the best one is her profile on her team page wich is also in English. Besides of that I found some secondary sources about her speed skating performances, 2 examples (in Dutch): here and here Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hardy Richardson and Jack Rowe

Tomlinson Studios Cabinet Photograph of Jack Rowe

  • ... that baseball players Hardy Richardson and Jack Rowe (pictured) were two of the "Big Four", a group "regarded for many years as the greatest quartette in the history of the national pastime"?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 01:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Hook is short enough, meets the formatting guidelines, and is interesting and neutral; is cited to a dead link and an offline source, so I'll assume good faith.
  • Hardy Richardson: Article is new enough (16397 B / 3135 B = ~5.2x expansion), long enough, and is neutral, cites sources with inline citations and is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Jack Rowe: Article is new enough (almost exactly 5x expanded), long enough, and is neutral, cites sources with inline citations and is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Image is free, is used in the article, and shows up well here.
  • QPQ checks out. Nice articles! 23W 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Genes, Brain and Behavior

  • ... that the journal Genes, Brain, and Behavior works to raise standards for mouse mutant studies to reduce waste and ethical problems because of the unnecessary use of live animals for flawed studies?

Improved to Good Article status by Randykitty (talk). Self nominated at 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

  • "at the forefront" needs to be quoted for sure, and probably attributed in the hook somehow, if it's used at all. Article says nothing this strong. EEng (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right, that's not in the sources, so I have edited the hook to take out the "forefront". It also makes it a bit shorter.
Unfortunately you lost me again with "...to reduce waste and yadda yadda [yawn]".
ALT1 ... that the journal Genes, Brain, and Behavior works to raise standards for mouse mutant studies?
If it could say "mutant mice" and drop the studies that would be the hookiest hook in my hooky hook book (Scientific accuracy? [blows raspberry]) Belle (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Before we get to Belle's perverted fantasies, I still have a worry now that I've look at the sources. The hook seems to be based on the journal's own published standards. I wonder if we shouldn't have a secondary source on this. After all, if this is really a significant initiative some other journal will have done an editorial or something commenting on it. EEng (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, there should be a secondary source for this, rather than us simply parroting their advertising line. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are two references (one an editorial in Nature Neuroscience) in the sentence following the hook in the article (last sentence of the "reception" section). So the hook is indeed based on an editorial in the journal itself, but its notability follows from that editorial (and from the European Journal of Neuroscience also following these guidelines). BTW, I think that ALT1 is indeed an improvement, the hook that I proposed was just too long and complicated. I think that "studies" needs to remain, however, because the guidelines don't intend to improve the animals, but the way in which they are being used. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you link to, or quote, what these two other journals say about GBB's initiative? EEng (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean here. If you are asking for the text of the Nature Neuroscience editorial, that is here. EJN simply included a reference to this guideline in their instructions for authors stating that authors should follow it. Let me know if I misunderstood and you'd like me to make changes to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 13[edit]

Edward Henry Cooper

  • ... that Irish landlord Edward Henry Cooper was the last of 6 members of his family to be a Member of Parliament for County Sligo?

Created by BrownHairedGirl (talk). Self nominated at 18:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, is written from a neutral point of view, and I didn't find any close paraphrasing from the public links. In general, the referencing is excellent, although there is one paragraph at the start of the "After Parliament" section with no reference given, and the claim that Sligo's MPs were generally drawn from the county's major landlords could also do with a reference.
Regarding the hooks, I like the original hook, but the article doesn't explicitly state that he was the last member of his family to represent County Sligo and needs to do so if that is to be used. I also have a slight concern about ALT1, as the document used as a reference states that the estate consisted of 30,000 acres when sold by Cooper's grandson, but doesn't specify that it was the same size as in Cooper's time. However, ALT2 is good (subscription-only reference accepted in good faith), and is a good, attention-grabbing hook.
With the minor attention to referencing, ALT2 will be good to go, and additional references could make the other hooks ready, too. Warofdreams talk 18:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Brean Down

Brean Down

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination.

Improved to Good Article status by Rodw (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 11:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This newly promoted GA is long enough and has been nominated within the correct time frame. Going with ALT1, the hook facts are cited, the image is appropriately licensed, QPQ not needed and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can a more interesting hook be found? This is very generic and could apply to any SSSI designated for both biological & geological reasons, which afaik is not particularly unusual. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Armadillidium vulgare

  • ... that more than 10,000 species of isopod (sample pictured) have been described worldwide?
  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Cwmhiraeth (talk), Esoxid (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 20:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Isn't it isopods, plural? EEng (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
As used in the proposed hook, it should be singular, as in "kinds of dog". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I ... guess ... um ... I keep going back and forth. Three breeds of dog? Three breeds of dogs? It's late. My mind is clouded. Whatever you think is best. zzzzzzzz EEng (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Singular, definitely. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 19:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if you might seduce a few more readers to click through and learn something by saying that some of them use "semiflubbing locomotion" or some other thing from the article, rather than just a raw number -- one thing I think interests people (not sure if it's in the article) is the fact that new species are always being identified -- "10,000 species, over 200 in the last year alone" or whatever. I kind of liked the fact that "marine and freshwater isopods are entirely benthic" since I never heard that word and it sounds vaguely naughty. EEng (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
How about:
  • ALT1 ... that isopods (woodlouse pictured) brood their eggs in a brood chamber which is filled with water, even in land-living species? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that even land-living species of isopod (woodlouse pictured) brood their eggs in a brood chamber filled with water? EEng (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT2 is much better expressed than ALT1 and I have struck the original hook and ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2A ... that even land-living species of isopod (woodlouse pictured) deposit their eggs in a brood chamber filled with water? EEng (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (sorry)
I prefer ALT2, or what about:

Yes, 2B is best of all. EEng (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full nomination review needed now that hook discussion is over. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Emmanuel Ifeajuna

Created by Sillyfolkboy (talk). Self nominated at 20:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Re the hold date, I'm not sure it's tasteful to commemorate the start of this year's games by highlighting that an athlete in an earlier year organized a coup in which a dozen people were killed. Maybe the anniversary of the coup? EEng (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's distasteful at all. The hook certainly isn't celebrating the coup. Ifeajuna is a key part of Commonwealth Games history. I don't think his political activities should exclude his association with the event (a point actually mentioned by commentators in the article sourcing). We are not here to demonstrate that every key athlete of Commonwealth Games history is a paragon of virtue. SFB 20:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything about paragons? When you juxtapose two facts you're inevitably making some kind of statement, because you picked those two things to say out of the many that you could picked to juxtapose, but didn't. When you further put that hook on the opening day of the games themselves, it does carry the feeling that you're saying something about the games. (Imagine if you were giving a speech at the opening ceremonies and said, "Friends, let us remember that one of our past athletes later organized a coup in which people were killed." I think there'd be a very awkward silence.)

Why not run it on the day of the coup? That changes the feeling from "Games athletes sometime go on to do nasty things" to "People who do nasty things sometimes have noble things in their past." See the difference? In keeping with that, I'd turn the hook around from "Athlete later organized coup" to "Organizer of coup had been an athlete" -- again, see the difference? I'm not saying this is a big deal. EEng (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be wrong to neglect to mention the two main reasons for his notability. It's his profoundly unusual life which causes the juxtaposition, not me. I'm not entirely opposed to aligning it with the coup anniversary, but after many months waiting it will be far from new content and I think very few people will actually notice the date coincidence in comparison to the Commonwealth Games (which as it stands is hardly overloaded with related nominations). Nothing in the DYK rules excludes usage of such a hook. Certainly, The Observer does not think it in such bad taste to cover Ifeajuna in this way during their build up to the games. SFB 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I never said to leave out either fact. I said two things: (a) that the opening of the Games is not an appropriate time to highlight what might be called treason by one of its past athletes; (b) that the order of presentation of the two facts matters. EEng (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we want a entire (hyperbole, I've seen two articles thus far) "Did you know about the Commonwealth games" section on the main page, so it may be better to run this on a date with no particular relevance. Belle (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Or, as I said, on the anniversary of the coup. EEng (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @EEng, Belle: I've proposed an alt hook to get this in line with your thinking. I'm pretty sure that three DYKs on the Commonwealth Games over the course of the two weeks that the event is held will hardly be overkill for our readers (estimated 196 hooks due over that period).
ALT1 ... that Emmanuel Ifeajuna became the first black African gold medallist at the Commonwealth Games when he won the high jump in 1952?
SFB 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer your ALT1. EEng (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 15[edit]

Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve, Golden-mantled racket-tail, Chestnut-backed bush warbler, Scaly-breasted kingfisher, Dark-eared myza, Matinan blue flycatcher, Cerulean cuckooshrike, Sulawesi masked owl

Golden-mantled racket-tail

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 05:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

Family Building Society

Created by The Whispering Wind (talk). Self nominated at 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. NPOV. No QPQ needed. Dup detector spot check shows up some copyvios, eg "specialise in products that allow family members to help each other" More rewriting is needed, or direct attribution in quotes. Hook is cited, but it opened on 14 July, presumably established earlier. So, I've added an ALT1. All paras cited. Edwardx (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah! Great point! Now fixed so the lead is now strictly in compliance with the source; I agree ALT1 is best. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed; should carefully check for close paraphrasing and copyvios. Struck original hook since ALT1 seems to be preferred. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fittja gård

Fittja gård

  • ... that during the reformation of Sweden, Fittja gård (pictured) was confiscated by farmers who used the lands until 1631?
  • ALT1: ... that Fittja gård (pictured) became a station for post riders in 1667, with six riders and 12 horses that had their own stable?
  • ALT2: ... that Fittja gård (pictured) became a station for overnight stay or exchange of horses for Swedish kings Charles XII and Oscar I while travelling through the area?
  • ALT3: ... that Fittja gård (pictured) became a popular overnight inn and station for exchange of horses for Swedish kings while travelling through the area?

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self nominated at 20:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Okay, doing my first DYK review here, so bare with me. First off: the licensing of these images[17][18] doesn't seem certain. Where does it state that they are released under CC? Their source descriptions[19][20] says that the metadata is released under CC0 1.0 Universal ("Rättigheter för metadata"), not the images. Peter Isotalo 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Length is okay (13 kB prose), creation is recent enough, and the QPQ of Lebih Indah checks out. @Yngvadottir: has added a substantial amount of the articles current contents, so shared credit seems in order. Sources overall are okay. References to Lilja (2011) accepted in good faith.
  • The citation regarding Olle Magnusson in "Ragnar Sellberg and municipal ownership" is a bit problematic. The source only covers details of Magnusson's life, but little of what is actually in the paragraph. The paragraph "In the early 1960s..." is unreferenced.
  • The references are also not consistently formatted. Wittrock and Vikström are both printed works that happen to have been published online. But they are no different from Lilja, even if they are cited only once.
  • There is no mention of what Mångkulturellt centrum actually does even though they are the current tenants. A sentence or two should be added. And, btw, what is the "new exhibition building" actually exhibiting? Local history? Multicultural history? Minimal clarification is in order.
  • This is not a requirement for the DYK, but I recommend that the original quotes form Lilja be added to the reference notes. Here are two examples from Kronan (ship) of how it could be done.[21][22]
  • The hook checks out and is properly referenced, but it isn't particularly interesting; remove the fairly non-essential detail about riders and horses and you have the basic "...that X became Y in year Z". Alternatives that focus more on juxtaposition or maybe modern history would be appropriate.
Peter Isotalo 11:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I will definitely take a look at it. I am pinging @Werldwayd: a trusted friend. And @GoingBatty: as well. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Also pinging @Doug Coldwell:. Perhaps you could take a look at the issues. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record @Peter Isotalo: I appreciate that you have reviewed the article. But as Yngvadottir points out at its talk page your review aims a bit high for a DYK. Had this been a GA-review than it would have been great but DYK is not about nit-picking. ;) Anyway it is your first review so you will learn ;). --BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Two issues seem quite relevant to me, though: the paragraph "In 1971 Botkyrka Municipality became..." is essentially unreferenced since the Huddinge Tidning supports almost nothing of what it claims; and the hook is just not... "hooky". If you feel anything else is outside of normal DYK criteria, please point it out.
Peter Isotalo 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look and give comments and edit article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I will go piece by piece, a step at a time. First let me point out I know no Swedish, so my opinions are just that. It appears to me the photographer intended his pictures to be public domain = copyright free. It's marked that way under "license" and if there were any other intent then it would be so marked = perhaps I missed. But right off hand I would say the pictures are copyright free and good to go.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Took it up with the uploader, Holger Ellgaard. It's not PD by the photographers choice, but by being taken before 1969. Problem solved.
Peter Isotalo 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggest ALT2 and ALT3 above.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggest removing "for eighteenth-century" since Oscar I is 19th century and Charles XII actually became king in the late 1690s, but otherwise it's sourced and ready to go.
Peter Isotalo 17:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Expanded article to explain exactly what Mångkulturellt centrum actually does.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed "for eighteenth-century" in ALT2 and ALT3. I lean towards ALT3 for simplicity sake.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed: ALT3 is preferable. I'm striking ALT1 for convenience sake. Good summary of MC's activities, btw.
Peter Isotalo 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Procedural question from newbie reviewer
How are DYK credits noted? Are only those involved in nomination and substantial expansion entitled to it? Is it up to me as reviewer to decide who should be given credit or not?
Peter Isotalo 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Good question and I will attempt to answer that based on my past experience of 300 DYKs. The way I see this problem is like this:
  • No, it is not up to you as reviewed who should be given credit. It is up to the original creator of the article (in this case User:BabbaQ). He can add or subtract co-editors as he sees fit. In this case he knows how to do this. If there is any question on this, which I have never seen in all these years of DYKs, an administrator would have to finalize. Not the reviewer. The ultimate choice would be up to the original creator. Generally only those involved in substantial expansion would be entitled to a DYK. The original creator would make that decision as to that definition as maybe certain material may be of key importance and the original creator would perhaps put much importance on this instead. A reviewer would not likely get a DYK credit as it might be considered a conflict of interest.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we close enough for a green "tick" yet?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. The only issue that remains is the "In 1971..."-paragraph. I know Swedish and have actually checked the only source provided, and it pretty much only covers that Magnusson protested changes. Nothing else. I'm inclined to consider the claims quite uncontroversial and I can easily confirm many of them, though not all. I'm not sure exactly how thorough I'm expected to be here, though. Thoughts? Peter Isotalo 19:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed 1971 paragraph until better references can be found.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you both Peter Isotalo and Doug Coldwell. Appreciate your input and help with this article. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg All relevant issues are now fixed. Good to go with some preference for ALT3. Peter Isotalo 19:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Created by AshLin (talk), MWAK (talk), Abductive (talk). Nominated by AshLin (talk) at 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment: QPQ Pending
  • Symbol question.svgThe article is new enough and long enough, with use of the type description and several media references. I have reservations about the statement that Maniraptorinae as a group is called the "four winged dinosaurs" as the last sentence in the introduction seems to suggest. Also the bbc reference does not support the hook as stated here. it only states that Changyuraptor was the largest flight capable dinosaur with hind leg feathering.--Kevmin § 08:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugly Heart

  • ... that the accompanying music video to "Ugly Heart" was seen by 2.5 million viewers in less than a week?
  • ALT1:... that Natasha Slayton from G.R.L. described the group's song "Ugly Heart" as "a Hawaiian hoedown"?
  • Reviewed: The Philaletheis Society
  • Comment: Please feel free to tweak the hook or suggest another.

Moved to mainspace by JuneGloom07 (talk), Raintheone (talk). Nominated by JuneGloom07 (talk) at 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC).


Odense - Sankt Knuds kirke 2005-07-16.jpeg
  • ... that the man generally considered to be the last Viking king was murdered in Odense (pictured)?

Improved to Good Article status by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk) and Ipigott (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 14:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I'd prefer ALT2 and a photo of the Hans Christian Andersen house.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I suggest:
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is a newly promoted GA, is long enough and has been nominated within the correct time frame. Going with ALT5 which has an inline citation and the second image, which has an appropriate license. Andersen was born in Odense but the house in the image is only assumed to be the correct location so I have changed the (pictured) to (presumed location pictured). I detected no policy violations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Word Crimes

  • Reviewed: Floortje Mackaij
  • Comment: Source (for the comparison) [23]. I will be handling the DYK but will be giving the article's key author credit

Created by Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk), Masem (talk). Nominated by Masem (talk) at 15:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Provided an alt blurb to just "grammar"-based. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Health issues in American football

Improved to Good Article status by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk) and ChrisPond (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 11:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I'd like the hook (and maybe the article) to be more clear on two points: is this pro football, college, HS, weekend? And what counts as an "injury" to form the denominator? Beyond that... not that we're here to here to SOAPBOX, but I'd really like to see the hook focus on the emerging evidence about serious longterm brain injuries and demetia. Maybe someone can, er, take that ball and run with it. EEng (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the source tries to take them all into account, and given that its the US National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health, they should be fairly well placed to get stats for it. Alt 1: ... that it is estimated that 43,000 to 67,000 American football players suffer from concussion each season? Alt 2: ... that it was only acknowledged in 2009 that concussions suffered in American football can lead to long-term brain injuries? Is tha the sort of hook you were thinking? Dementia's a bit shaky here, a 2009 NFL report which even the "report's own researchers questioned the reliability of some of the data-gathering methods employed by the study". Thanks, Matty.007 09:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd phrase it a bit differently.

I encourage random editors to help make sure the final hook is ironclad. Another angle would be the $765 settlement. EEng (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Alt 4: ... that in August 2013, the National Football League pledged $765 million to medically examine former NFL players and for research and education purposes? Doesn't really work I don't think. Thanks, Matty.007 20:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

La fille aux cheveux de lin, Des pas sur la neige

Claude Debussy

  • Reviewed: Roll, Jordan, Roll; Baseball's Sad Lexicon
  • Comment: Please save for August 22, Debussy's birthday. I'm willing to change to another image of Debussy that is higher quality if necessary to make this the lead hook.

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self nominated at 00:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on July 16[edit]

Things Which Have Never Yet Been Done

Improved to Good Article status by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 07:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

Ponte Conde de Linhares

Ponte Conde de Linhares

  • ... that the Ponte Conde de Linhares (pictured) was said to be the world's longest bridge when completed in 1634?
  • ALT1:... that the Ponte Conde de Linhares (pictured) was built on alluvial soil using the trunk of a tree with laterite stone being used for the superstructure?
  • Reviewed: Remedios Circle
  • Comment: I am not sure if my usage of the article title is correct. Please let me know if incorrect.

5x expanded by Rsrikanth05 (talk). Self nominated at 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

Dylan Penn

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 04:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

FYI Started reviewing. I think this should be listed under July 19? HelenOnline 19:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I didn't look at the second article yet. HelenOnline 19:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg I have made some minor edits and improved sources per WP:BLPSOURCES. Both articles are new enough, long enough and well sourced. I have two issues with the hook. I would not add her parents names, her surname is enough of a clue and you are giving away too much thus making it less hooky. Also, we only have an unnamed source for the figure of $150k and we do not know when she declined the offer only when it was reported so I would suggest:

  • ALT1 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn had declined an offer to pose for the cover of Playboy, but she appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014?

HelenOnline 14:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think the hook would be more likely to generate a clickthrough if the reader knew who she was. So I propose the following:

Symbol question.svg It is better but I think it exceeds the 200 character limit now. You could pipe her name as "the daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright". HelenOnline 15:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with ALT3. HelenOnline 20:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Pulled from prep because of concerns at [24]. Maybe some people are overly concerned, or maybe some people aren't understanding others' concerns, but one nice thing about DYK is there's sure no deadline, so let's find an outcome everyone can be happy with. EEng (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pull quotes

While we're on the topic of Prep 4, is everyone cool with the hook for Dylan Penn centering on her posing nude? I thought we'd decided to avoid potentially contentious hooks about living people. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How dare you take the focus off a petty diction-ary dispute? But if you must... I wondered about the same thing, though it get's culturally complex when we start talking about whether posing nude is a "bad thing". Maybe we should pull it back and wait while it's discussed further. EEng (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Let's go airgonate in the meantime.
Look, I don't think this is a big deal, but...
  • When TTT says there have been far more immoral acts, it's a reminder that some people might think of this as an immoral act (whether that's what TTT meant or not, or whether we think so or not) -- which makes it contentious, I think.
  • As TTT points out, she wasn't completely "exposed", but no one could know that from the hook.
EEng (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO, there's a big difference between highlighting an article about a magazine that publishes nude pictures and stating on the main page that a particular living person has had a nude photoshoot published. To say it isn't potentially contentious is, again in my opinion, just plain wrong. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We are just summarizing the RS, which find this to be a highlight. Pricasso has been on the main page. If we have had a hook about a dick painter on the main page posing nude is just not that big a deal. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) was a WP:TFA. I just don't think posing nude for an artistic magazine is that big a deal. It will likely generate a lot of clickthroughs though. In a very prissy prim and proper world it is contentious, but in 2014, it is not that big a deal for the main page. If she had been full frontal it might be a big deal, but in this case it is not that big a deal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would not be averse to tinkering with the hook to clarify nude, but not exposed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we all agree to pull this for now, reopen the nom page, and continue the discussion there? EEng (talk)
  • There are several things about this hook that worry me. (1) It doesn't give the subject's name, leading to the thought that she is only notable because of her parentage. (2) By mentioning Playboy and then treats!, it implies that they are similar in nature, when treats! is more artistic at least in aim. (3) Nude in this context is usually understood to mean completely uncovered, so the strategically placed handbag is important. Perhaps something along the lines of "that Dylan Penn appeared on the cover of treats! wearing only a $6,000 Fendi bag? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) [repeated edit conflicts]
  • "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." From the Content section of the main rules. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup. This is exactly the sort of clueless sexist drivel that will sooner or later lead to DYK being removed from the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you really think a model considers it negative to be told that she is so beautiful that a magazine will offer her hundreds of thousands of dollars to appear on its cover. To a model this is probably a compliment. This is an artistic magazine. She probably views it as a point of pride to have been on the cover rather than a black mark on her career. I don't think the rule that you are pointing to is relevant for a hook that highlights a point of pride for the individual. Thus, I see no need to change the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that being on the cover of treats! is an indication that you as an individual are an artistic work of beauty. Thus, being on the cover (although its subjects are nude), is almost surely a point of pride for a model and not a negative thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not the slightest bit interested in your claims to telepathic powers. A DYK hook that fails to even name the woman involved in a photoshoot while emphasising her (obscured) nudity is as clear example of the objectification of women as could be imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My original hook named her clearly. Not naming individuals in some cases increases the curiousity of the article in a way that serves the purpose of DYK, which is to get people to look at (and review) our new articles. Given her current level of celebrity and those of her parents, this type of piping is in keeping with common practices at DYK. In terms of nudity, arts magazines don't use pictures of ugly people, so I continue to assert that nudity in this fine arts magazine context is likely a prideful rather than shameful thing. In high art nudity is not objectification. If anything is objectified, in this case it is Fendi. Their bag is being used and abused in this photo. There is no way you can convince me that that bag is proud of this photo. It is being objectified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I bet Dylan's mother, father, brother and lovers are probably proud of the photo too. If I were her man, I'd be pumping "My Chick Bad" on repeat every time I think about her on the cover. Unless you are a BAADDD chick you can't get that cover, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The bag is an object. Dylan Penn isn't - and the fact that you appear not to be able to comprehend the difference merely confirms my earlier comments. And I don't give a flying fuck about what you 'bet', though I'd think it safe to say that if you were 'her man' she'd be contemplating the benefits of an alternative sexuality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I reviewed this hook and I am sure TTT will agree I took great pains to check the article and hook satisfied BLP policy. Who says it is a "negative" aspect? That is a personal judgement. Nudity is not negative per se, especially when it is tastefully done. She did not intend for it to be a secret, obviously. Including Playboy in the hook does not suggest they are similar magazines, it contrasts the two magazines. Wikipedia should appeal to all types of people and DYK should reflect that. HelenOnline 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Some people think war is "negative", I certainly favour nudity over war any day of the week but I don't object to hooks about war. HelenOnline 18:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) AndyTheGrump, While I try to understand the difference between an object and an individual, you should consider the difference between prideful and shameful subject matter. High art nudity in this context is not shameful to the subject. Probably everyone in her life supports it. I would not be surprised if they had a family pow wow to discuss whether to go with Playboy or treats!. Her management team and family probably thought this cover was a great get at this stage of her career. A women who can link herself to Robert Patinson and Nick Jonas in her first year as a sex symbol is not just randomly hitting the newstand in ill-conceived photo spreads. This is probably all part of her masterplan. She is almost surely pleased, if not proud of the result. Her mother is a (former) model and surely supportive of this. If it makes you and your mother proud, "F***" everybody else. This is not a negative thing to the subject, no matter how you slice it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
End discussion transferred from TDYK
Continue discussion here, please
  • EEng, I am not sure why you pulled this and moved it here after the way the discussion has gone. The reviewer has reconsidered the review and endorsed her (assuming HelenOnline is female) support. I remain unconvinced that a nude cover appearance is a negative issue for this biographical subject. I think it is likely a point of pride rather than a point of shame. This is not a set of images from an old boyfriend published against her will that she is suing over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I pulled it because at least three editors (including me) expressed serious reservations. What's your hurry? EEng (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am at a loss for words. I watch several articles about top models for obscure reasons (e.g. they come from my country or are linked to families I have written about) and have noticed that tasteful nudity is becoming increasingly common in fashion modelling. I am not sure I understand why but it's a fact, just have a look at a few of their online portfolios. Surely this only reflects that? Would it make a difference if the word "nude" were removed from the hook? HelenOnline 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What would make a difference is a DYK that didn't reduce Penn to an object only defined by her relationship to other people, and her state of undress. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the subject of this article decided to appear on that cover. This isn't objectification. This isn't "sexist drivel". It's a hook that will interest some people and disgust a very small number (we can't please everyone). The piped link is strange, and we can do without it, but the rest of the hook is fine. --Jakob (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • AndyTheGrump, I would bet that Ms. Penn was paid six figures for the modeling gig, so I don't classify this as objectification, but rather market efficiency. However, I have no problem reverting to the following hook:

Look, TTT, let's wait for other editors to comment, but by your logic a woman who is raped is being objectified (even if we might argue about what that means, exactly) but a prostitute is not. That's crazy. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It might be the case that a desperate prostitute who has no choice is being objectified but a leisure six-figure call girl who is freely participating in the market is not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Words fail. EEng (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) I suppose we are waiting for Espresso Addict, who pointed out that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided."; AndyTheGrump and you·, EEng. Espresso Addict has yet to respond as to whether he feels something that is likely a point of pride is a negative thing. In all probability she was paid six figures for this and it is probably something she planned as part of her own marketing with her family and/or management. To have achieved the cover was probably successful step in her career and a point of pride rather than a point of shame (i.e., a positive thing in her life rather than a negative one).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The article's statement that "she only models to earn a paycheck" kinda works against this being a point of pride. I'm sure AndyTheGrump can elaborate. I wonder if, at this point, time might be saved by picking a hook on a different aspect of the subject. EEng (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Earning a paycheck in some circles means putting food in your kids mouth and in other circles it means being able to pay for weekends in Aspen.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I am in no hurry.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, TonyTheTiger's unsourced speculation and vacuous blather as to what Penn thinks about any of this is of no relevance whatsoever. If the most interesting thing we can say about someone is that they chose to pose semi-naked on one magazine cover rather than another, they clearly don't deserve an article in the first place. And if they do deserve an article, they deserve to be named, and the hook should relate to something of more significance than transient tabloid fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, Maybe in your circle turning down $150,000 offers to take pictures is a run-of-the-mill daily event, but that is not true for most readers of WP. P.S. if you feel the article is poorly sourced (by tabloids), you should make that objection.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not a forum, and we have no interest whatsoever in your infantile fantasies. Go write something rude on a YouTube comments page or something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @AndyTheGrump: Your comments here are uncivil and bordering on personal attacks. --Jakob (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am upset at the personal nature of AndyTheGrump's comments, but I am more troubled by the imposition of his personal beliefs that nude pictures are a negative thing to the subject. Who is he to say that everyone is ashamed of taking nude pictures.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nowhere have I said anything of the kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • AndyTheGrump, You seem to be making the argument that nude modeling is a negative thing for anyone who has done it and that it is nothing but fodder for transient tabloid fluff. Did I misinterpret your argument above.--02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: Fine, but why is the "daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright" in the hook. It makes it overly wordy and I'm not sure how much relevance it has to the rest of the hook. Is there something I'm missing here? --Jakob (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jakec, As I mentioned above. This is like my Jalen Brunson nomination. The subject is currently far less notable/recognizable than her parents. The purpose in DYK is to generate interest in reading the page. Since her parents' have far greater notability, using their names in the hook will generate interest in her article. I have mentioned parents on DYK several times. In addition to Jalen Brunson this month, I have mentioned more notable parents in articles such as Randall Cunningham II, Glenn Robinson III, Tim Hardaway, Jr. and maybe some others. I think this serves the purpose of DYK since the purpose is to generate interest in reading the article. If the parents are extremely famous relative to the subject, it helps generate interest in reading the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. it looks like Allan Kournikova will hit the main page with his sister Anna Kournikova linked in the hook for similar reasons to those above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I know! Let's put an image of the naked Dylan Penn next to the hook. That would generate even more interest! EEng (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
We are trying to generate interest in reading the article. Look at User:TonyTheTiger/DYKviews and search for "swimsuit". Six of my most viewed hooks of all time mentioned swimsuit modeling in the hook. Body Issue is also among my most viewed hooks of all time. I am fairly certain that nude modelling/Playboy mentions will get this article a lot of views.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That just makes it even more obvious that naked pictures will attract yet more views! So I don't understand why you're not taking me up on my suggestion. EEng (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely, you are joking. We can't use FU images at DYK or on the main page as a matter of policy. Talk with the experts but it violates WP:NFCC somehow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I already approved ALT3 as a compromise hook. Re ALT4: 1) It is too long, 2) I would not include both her name and her parents' names as it is overkill, 3) We do not have a good enough source for the $150k figure for it to be mentioned in the hook.

1) HelenOnline, Single-article hooks are limited to 200 characters. This two-article hook is 202 characters. This is not too long. 2) People above have complained about the piping in ALT3. As noted above with my past articles such as Jalen Brunson, Randall Cunningham II, Glenn Robinson III, and Tim Hardaway, Jr., it is common to use much more famous relatives to induce page views on our newest articles, which is the point of DYK. Robin Wright has 2,098,328 hits in the last 365 days (5749/day) Sean Penn has 1,764,794 hits in that time (4835/day). Dylan Penn averages about a tenth as many as either of her parents. 3) What do you mean not good enough. We have this source from E!. E! is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
1) and 2) You asked for my comment and I gave it to you. Please don't argue with me (or anyone else), you are not helping yourself. Technically it may be acceptable, but I don't have to like it. 3) The E! article only cites an unnamed source ("The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change.") As we are waiting for more opinions, I have requested comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion. HelenOnline 06:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It is a fact that it was reported but I am being careful and interpreting the eligibility criteria narrowly, which surely is not a bad thing in light of the above response. HelenOnline 06:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
HelenOnline, Saying don't argue with me is not very logical here. Are you going to lash out if I try to talk to you about the problems here. 1) it has been longstanding policy that the limit be "about 200" and that a little leniency is allowed for multi-article hooks. 2) You have supported ALT3 and people have complained about its piping so I proposed ALT4. We need to talk this out. My reasoning is clear and you saying you don't want to talk about it does not really help. 3) RS is not based on the primary source. The secondary source, E!, has a reliable editorial process. We accept and summarize what their editorial process prints. Their editors have accepted $150,000 as a printable fact. We trust their editors. That is how WP:RS works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to comments based on eligibility criteria. Nudity is not "negative" per se, that is a personal judgement and not NPOV. Do you really want to set a precedent in this regard? What's next? HelenOnline 06:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • A reminder to everyone: in order not to mess up T:TDYK, subheaders added to this template need to e level five or below, since level four indicates a new nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

First let us recall

ALT3 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that the daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright had declined an offer to pose for the cover of Playboy, but she appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014?
ALT4 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—had declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but she appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover?

These are a couple characters shorter than ALT4:

Summary thus far

Several parties oppose ALT3 due to the piping without disclosing the name of the subject.

  • Why do we need to say "a March 2014 report said". If this report is reliable, we can treat it as fact. It not, its claims have no business on the main page.
  • ALT 9: ... that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright— declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover? --Jakob (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I had previously noted there was intrigue to declining an offer in March and accepting another in April. Removing "March 2014" from the hook takes that element away, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm uncomfortable with the opinions that Tony the Tiger has ascribed to me. My personal opinion on nudity is completely irrelevant. This is certainly something that will be commented on negatively in the UK press if the subject achieves a career in a field other than glamour modelling; the article states that the subject is modelling for money, rather than as a career move. The phrase "Her parents might be happy to know Penn appears in the magazine's pages with a modicum of modesty intact" in the referenced article for the photoshoot[25] is somewhat negative in tone. If we must run with a modelling hook then I'd be much happier if (1) it named her directly, and (2) it made the relatively tasteful/artistic nature of the modelling clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Modeling for money? I think it is probably fun to be paid 6 figures for and to document your itness. It has got to be a good experience to have enough itness to command that kind of money for a day of taking pictures. Hey I need money. I want to replace my stolen Breitling and buy the watch I dreamed about when I had my Breitling. I need a new $2000 camera lens. I'd like to upgrade from my 2008 Saturn Vue. I digress. I just don't think any model is suppose to say in an interview I crave the attention of the camera. They are suppose to sound reluctant. It is probably better to say, I am not so excited about this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and a seventeen-year-old callgirl loves the fact that men will pay so much to appreciate her itness up close and personal, I'd wager. Great for the self-esteem! Your logic is like that of a junior-high-schooler. EEng (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Call girls probably don't have that much itness or they would be making money off of their looks in more public ways. I have a call out to some women from my past who have done nude modeling for art. I accidentally put my phone in silent mode so I missed a couple of callbacks. I will have a better feel for this later.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, no. If EVER there was a time to invoke the no-original-research rule, this is it. EEng (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with that, but didn't you just say that we don't know if she declined the offer in March? --Jakob (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT 12 is good. --Jakob (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed subgroup theorem

  • Comment: Feel free to use another hook.

Created by YohanN7 (talk). Nominated by Josve05a (talk) at 21:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

For this hook we'll need a direct cite in the article supportin the "several known as" point. EEng (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This version is going to be more confusing as a sound bite because there are two Cartan theorem articles, Cartan's theorem and Cartan's theorems A and B. --Mark viking (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Confusion is a minor problem here compared to the desperate need to inject something interesting into a math hook (speaking as a degree-holder in applied math, before you say anything). EEng (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough :) --Mark viking (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Just in case there's some hidden romance to this theorem that can be injected, I'm paging DYK's designated math hookster David Eppstein. David, is there a love triangle we can work in here? EEng (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, this is way more technical than I usually consider appropriate for DYK in my own nominations. But anyway, how about
Obviously, to use it as a hook, we would need this to be in the article (and properly sourced) first. As a source, I suggest
David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
At least you've injected some inspiration. If the others want this hook, I'll augment the article per the source. EEng (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Please augment the article anyhow. I don't know the historical order of events myself, but clearly, if von Neumann proved the theorem for closed matrix groups, it deserves to be in the article. The proof in the article is specialized to matrix groups, though the method generalizes to arbitrary groups. Come to think of it, I'm not sure Cartan proved the theorem in 1930. The cited publication is from 1930. YohanN7 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Happy to do it, but it might be tmw. EEng (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I added it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Your alacrity is disgusting. I'll bet in school you cleaned the erasers. 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you David. But be aware of tmw. It might cause fatigue, and fatigue is not to be messed around with lightheartedlyFace-smile.svg I threw out an info-box and put a von Neumann picture in. YohanN7 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


  • ... that according to local tradition, the shrine of Muawiya in the town of Basma is named after a soldier in Saladin's army who was slain near the town?

5x expanded by Huldra (talk). Nominated by Al Ameer son (talk) at 21:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT1 ... that according to local tradition, the shrine of Muawiya in the town of Basma is named for a soldier in Saladin's army who fell in battle nearby? EEng (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Norcliffe Chapel

Norcliffe Chapel

Created by Peter I. Vardy (talk). Self nominated at 14:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT1 ... that Cheshire's Norcliffe Chapel (pictured) was founded by a Unitarian, but was a Baptist chapel for its first ten years?
    • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough and long enough. It is written in a neutral tone with suitable citations. The image is appropriately licenced. QPQ done. The claim made in the hook and ALT 1 are supported by a suitable source. There isn't much between the two hooks but I would go with the original. (I have added a note on the talk page about "designation", but it wouldn't preclude running as DYK).— Rod talk 11:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 17[edit]

Chandrakant Topiwala

Created by Nizil Shah (talk). Self nominated at 16:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nila (Ramayana)
  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. NPOV. All paragraphs cited. Hook fact needs a cite immediately afterwards. I've added an ALT1. Infobox has 1939, but article and Mohan Lal has 1936 as birth year. "dictionary of literary terms in Gujarati" is a copyvio of Mohan Lal. "Vishishta Sahitya Sangnya-Kosh" is not a dictionary. The English prose in this article could be clearer. Edwardx (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for review, Edwardx. Hook cited. Birthday corrected. Vishwa Sahitya Sangnya-Kosh is also dictionary as per Gujarati Sahitya Parishad ref (in Gujarati) but for now it removed it so no issues. Regarding copyvio of using sentence 'dictionary of literary terms in Gujarati', i dont have better/alternative words to describe the same. If you can suggest, it is good. I copyedited prose but I may not be perfect as I am not native speaker. Feel free to point out. Thanks again. -Nizil (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. Having done a little more copyediting, and I would say that it is now good to go. Edwardx (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

John Gregorson Campbell

Improved to Good Article status by Sagaciousphil (talk), Eric Corbett (talk), J Milburn (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 19:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg No copyvio, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing detected. GAey enough and recently GAey enough. Neutral. No QPQ necessary. Citations as far as the eye can see. Hook is supported by the whole article rather than any citation in particular. Passing it but I'm going to suggest an ALT as obviously a folklorist with folkloric family legends has got to be hooky (prep-builder, you choose the hook, but choose wisely as you don't want to get on the wrong side of anybody here as we all have wicked tempers and know how to hold a grudge).
ALT ...that the family of church minister and folklorist John Gregorson Campbell was said to have been cursed by a Bean Shìth? Belle (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Or alternatively don't pipe banshee, but I think the Alt hooks is better. Thanks, Matty.007 08:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT 2 that church minister and a folklorist John Gregorson Campbell wrote the book Superstitions of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland 1900?

Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Philcade Building

Philcade(Amoco North Building) in downtown Tulsa

Created by Bruin2 (talk). Self nominated at 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Is it Philtower Building, or Buildings? The hooks conflict. EEng (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It is Philtower Building. I revised the link in ALT2 to make this a little clearer, although the previous link would have taken you to the correct page via a redirect. Bruin2 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Rohan Chand

  • ... that child actor Rohan Chand was scouted at a baseball game when he was six years old?

5x expanded by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I question the concept of a 6-yo casting director. EEng (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I doubt most people would read it that way, but copyedited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. Both of the hooks are well sourced with inline citations, QPQ has been done, and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Justin Holland

Created by Jacqke (talk). Nominated by Jacqke (talk) at 09:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I don't think we should be doing hooks about pedagogues. EEng (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New (17th), long enough, 2nd DYK so no QPQ necessary. On copyvio, there are some significant signs of close paraphrasing that should be recast.[26] On neutrality, I think "He would work all his life, advancing the causes of his race." should be rephrased, though the rest is fine. One major problem: the second ref (Homestead.com) is an unreliable, user-created source. It needs to be removed and preferably replaced with a better alternative. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
But do you think we should be doing hooks about pedagogues? EEng (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw the innuendo, but as my field is alternative education, I was inclined to quip about how pedagogues actually are harmful to children (and that would surely take us even further off-topic...) czar  05:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's have a cease-fire on this one. EEng (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I found the source that the unreliable website used, an academic paper. I can cite that paper instead. And work on the rephrasing. So, was the comment about pedagogue real? Is the objection the sesquipedelian nature of the word, pedagogue, or an objection to a connotation for the word. I meant it simply as one who designs a course of education for others, and not necessarily children. The word implies strictness, but one could also say that some disciplines require high or strict standards (classical music and physics are two disciplines where pedagogy/a strict standard is still appropriate).Jacqke (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It was a tongue-in-cheek joke (depending on your read). Anyway, don't mind that. An academic paper sounds good on the surface, but make sure you're citing from that paper and not hearsay from an unreliable site that claims to be from a paper (the quintessence of why we don't use unreliable sources). czar  16:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Went through academic paper to make sure it covered all material in this article. I added and revised based on that source, using my own words (I think!) It would be nice to get to the original sources cited in that paper, but I won't be able to get at them any time soon. My biggest concern is the line referring to Frederick Douglass (I just removed it). The paper used his name along with Holland's as prominent black leaders. It does not say that they worked together directly, even though both were involved in the National Councils.Jacqke (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Some background information in the hook will make the remarkable nature of these achievements more obvious:

It's a tight fit but I wanted to get in that he was black, and the century, and the "classical" because these together make it quite remarkable. So I had to drop some other points. I want to say that this is really the kind of DYK we should have more of -- things that are really interesting and enlightening, instead of just miscellaneous facts. EEng (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good. Would we keep pedagogue in the article? I changed it to teacher in the introduction thinking out would be easier to understand, but that can be changed back.Jacqke (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Belle, can you please explain? I have to go to dinner. EEng (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do I need. to do anything more for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqke (talkcontribs)

Just wait for a reviewer to come along. EEng (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm not sure about the reliability of the Clemenson piece since it was presented at a symposium and likely has no editorial oversight. There's a professor at Case by the same name, so perhaps that's her? I'd be curious if you know anything more about that... Otherwise, both hooks look good but I'm having trouble sourcing the information in the books since there are no page numbers listed! Can you help me out? czar  16:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I added page numbers for The Guitar and Mandolin, and made sure the other book has page numbers and links to those pages. Do you need page numbers broken down from the research paper?Jacqke (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Usually I like to give page #s but it's really not required for papers (as opposed to books). If want to, though, there's a great template {{rp}} you use like this.
<ref>{{cite article|author=Smith, J.|work=Some Journal|date=May 11, 2014}}</ref>{{rp|284}}

which produces something like [1]:284 (meaning page 284 of the cited source). Makes things much easier when the same source is cited to several pages. See Sacred_Cod#First_Cod, where it's used a lot. EEng (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Autumn Sandeen

Created by EvanRo (talk). Self nominated at 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

Note I changed marker to designation, as that certainly seems more natural offhand. (Marker sounds like something to do with DNA.) However, does marker have some special meaning I don't know? EEng (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your ALT1 hook looks great to me. Thanks for the help. --EvanRo (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Secular Pro-Life

Created by Acather96 (talk). Self nominated at 20:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg You're close; firstly, you need the QPQ. But more importantly, the statement from the hook must have an inline citation immediately following it in the article text. Not just at the end of the overall paragraph covering it. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 18[edit]

Ganton Street

A green plug and socket on the wall, Ganton Street, London

  • ... that London's Ganton Street features a giant plug and socket (pictured) that lights up at night?
  • Comment: Not a self-nomination

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, length OK, article well referenced, no copyvio, image free to use. But the link does not say that it lights up at night. How about an ALT, say, that it has changed colour several times? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The linked page includes two pictures of it lit up, in addition to the one in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I too can see that it lights up. Just at night or also during the day? Sorry, but the link does not fully confirm the hook. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A Google image search suggests just at night. The hook does not say it only lights up at night, just that it does and that is confirmed in the link. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Bethlehem Hingham Shipyard

5x expanded by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC).

P. T. Daly

Created/expanded by Warofdreams (talk). Self nominated at 01:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Name, date, length, hook, and checks for close paraphrasing check out (mainly because there is no way to access the sources offline, so I will assume good faith on this). Good job! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Walter W. Law

  • ... that Walter W. Law went from being a carpet salesman to shipping 8,000 roses daily, earning up to $100,000 annually?

Improved to Good Article status by (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 15:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

The Beatles (album)

  • ... that the session for The Beatles led to their disbandment?
  • ALT1:... that a lack of drugs assisted the writing of The Beatles?

Improved to Good Article status by Ritchie333 (talk), Dan56, SNUGGUMS, CuriousEric, JG66. Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 10:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment – I would like to propose an alternative for the first hook. – Editør (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that the recording sessions for The Beatles (1968), also known as the White Album, contributed to the disbandment of The Beatles two years later?
  • Both hooks proposed so far ALTs 0 and 2 are something like "X caused World War II" -- we should make such a statement only if there's settled scholarly consensus on the point. Because ("unfortunately") it's a very complete article with a lot of material, I can't really find where in there such a consensus is presented. Clearly these recording sessions were troubled but that's different from saying they helped cause the breakup. Can someone find what I'm looking for? EEng (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • They are both in the article: alt 1: "the lack of external influences and drugs sparked the band's creativity". Original: "The sessions for the album lasted until October, and ultimately led to their disbandment". Thanks, Matty.007 13:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "ALTs 0 and 2" (not ALT1) -- now corrected above. Yes, I see the article text you quote, but I don't see the sources. My concern is exacerbated by a review of Break-up_of_the_Beatles -- again, I see statements like "There was tension during recording of the White Album" but not that this caused the breakup. I'm not trying to be difficult but, really, statements like X caused Y in historical or cultural events are very tricky and need rock-solid sourcing. Luckily there's plenty of material for other hooks e.g. Beatles lyrics are full of fascinating hidden references. Can't we use one of those instead? EEng (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The lead says "The sessions for the album lasted until October, and ultimately led to their disbandment.", which is even stronger than ALT2. But if there is no proper source for it in the article, it shouldn't be in the hook, and it shouldn't even be in a good article in the first place. – Editør (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ritchie333, can you fix this? EEng (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the section 'Personnel issues' show the friction? Thanks, Matty.007 07:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As Bob the Builder once put it, yes I can. The lead as I wrote it just says the album session contributed to the break-up, and I have added another quotation from John Lennon who (according to the source) pretty much stated that verbatim. However, it did not cause the break-up. I agree with EEng though that the hooks are in the vein of "did you know that Fred Phelps has never been seen taking a walk up Canal Street, Manchester". Let me suggest:
ALT3 ... that The Beatles, also known as the White Album, was the first by the group not to be issued in mono in the US?
ALT4 ... that an early pressing of The Beatles with serial number 0000005 sold for over £19,000 on eBay?
ALT5 ... that in 2013, Rutherford Chang created an art exhibition of a record store where the only album for sale was The Beatles? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Inspired by Ritchie: Alt6: ... that The Beatles sold for over £19,000? Thanks, Matty.007 11:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I like ALT6 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Heather Turland

Created by Sillyfolkboy (talk). Self nominated at 21:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Or at least before the end of the games on 2 July... SFB 06:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
of what year? EEng (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
... as long as she didn't organize a coup anywhere. EEng (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Shopping for Fangs

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self nominated at 04:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

  • 21 days is a fairly standard filming period for independent and small-scale films, so not a great hook fact IMO. How about this alt...
  • That works. SL93 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that of Shopping for Fangs (filmed for less than US$10,000) a reviewer wrote that the actors managed to do rather nicely, "under the circumstances"? EEng (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 19[edit]

Vercors Massif

  • ... that ....?

5x expanded by Gilderien (talk). Self nominated at 23:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC). Review:Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sulu_Bleeding-heart

  • I am in the process of translating this from the article on fr.wiki. I request discretion to delay the DYK until it is "finished".--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 23:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles de Visscher

Charles de Visscher in profile

Created by Mendaliv (talk). Self nominated at 04:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC).

Tripura local body elections, 2014

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 20:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg - Upon initial look, the article's new enough, long enough and QPQ's completed. Hook is sourced enough. I'm still in the process in checking the article for instances of close paraphrasing. However, there's an "orphan article" maintenance template in the article. Kindly resolve the issue so there will be no glitches if the article will be promoted. -WayKurat (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Afaik, the orphan tag is not a hinder for DYK. --Soman (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Done with the checking. No instance of close paraphrasing upon review. Symbol confirmed.svg GTG for me. -WayKurat (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dogs in the United States

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 03:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I'm sorry to say that the article has serious drafting and organization problems, and I'm concerned about whether "Dogs in [country]" really justifies a standalone article. Can someone else opine because maybe I'm just being grumpy. EEng (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@EEng: Tried to nominate it before the end of 7th day, you should explain your point. Street dogs in Moscow was also a DYK. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 20[edit]

Fu Xiangshan

Created by CWH (talk). Self nominated at 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

50 Carnaby Street

  • ALT1:... that 50 Carnaby Street was home to a series of nightclubs, including the Florence Mills Social Parlour, The Roaring Twenties and Columbo's?
  • Reviewed: Glen Rounds
  • Comment: Better hooks welcome!

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 18:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Brod Pete

Created by PapaJeckloy (talk). Self nominated at 05:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

  • In all seriousness, I don't understand the hook. EEng (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He reasoned that he is an alien or creatures that did not originated here on Earth when he failed to give his birth certificate, it is something weird that's why i added it, it will have many hits because of it's weirdness. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC).
Um, are you sure he didn't just mean that he's a non-citizen? That's a more natural assumption in the context of an election. EEng (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As phrased the hook makes no sense anyway. Someone does not usually "reason" as a result of simply doing something, they "reason" when they make a decision or articulate an opinion. Why is "alien" in italics anyway? And looking at the article... how is "alien" an abbreviation? I think this article needs to be copyedited before it can be listed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe reasoned means explained. Anyway, I want to put this as gently as I can, but the English in the article really needs attention, as M already said. EEng (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Alien is his abbreviation or commonly used word, he always said it for joke, he used it since he failed to do it, because he's a comedian. about the italic i have removed the italics on the alien text, the grammar now is fixed, check it -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
I'm sorry i have removed the abbreviation word on the article, i have changed it to his commonly used word, alien. I don't know that its the term used for shortening words, as i said he is always saying it since he failed to do it, and he's a comedian take a note of it. Reason is the right term of it he reasoned to the media that he is an alien.-PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This article needs a full copyediting. I've tagged it as such. If I understand the hook correctly, the idea is that Brod Pete's candidacy was rejected for failure to provide a birth certificate, and that he said he could not provide one because he is an alien (as in extra-terrestrial). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point, i have removed the tag and rewrited and rephrased the whole article and the grammar is now fixed. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC).
There are still basic grammatical errors, such as use of incorrect prepositions. I'm also growing concerned with the hook, which I think might be overstating what actually took place. The source cited for the claim that his candidacy was rejected doesn't even indicate that he ran at all, just that he was unable to run, and that his failure to produce a birth certificate (on the grounds that he's an alien) was the reason. The same source suggests the candidacy has become something of an urban legend. Even if the hook sourcing was good, I'd be concerned that most readers would misunderstand the meaning of "alien" in this context: that is, assuming it means foreign rather than extra-terrestrial. There are other basic errors with this article as well, such as duplicated citations and use of unreliable sources (the YouTube video, which I believe is also a copyright violation; we can't link to such things). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to clear up this "alien" issue in the hook, it's actually Brod Pete's catchphrase. He hosts a segment in a sitcom here in the Philippines where he spoofs a religious TV show and he says "alien" instead of "amen". In the interview to him indicated in the article, he used the word "alien" and made it look like it has double meaning: his association with the word, given his comedic work as previously mentioned, and the definition of the word in legal terms. The hook will definitely be misunderstood or may confuse readers especially if they aren't familiar with Philippine pop culture, unless clear explanations and reliable sources will be added to the nominated article. -WayKurat (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it is now getting out of hand, for this to be finished, let's just add an alternate hook.-PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT2:... that comedian Brod Pete got his popular catchprase, alien, when he mispelled I.T Expert to E.T on his Facebook fanpage, that means extra-terrestrial?

ALT2 is Symbol delete vote.svg: hook is not in article at all. There are still serious grammatical issues with this article that have not been resolved. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's a more accurate alternate hook, by the way, i have fixed the grammar errors on the article - PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT3:...that comedian, Brod Pete, wrote a segment on Bubble Gang, that is a parody of a popular religious program, Ang Dating Daan, interpreting fairy tales and children's literature instead of religious scriptures?

Symbol possible vote.svg ALT3 is too long (206 characters). There are also ongoing grammatical problems in both the article and these hooks. Perhaps I'm being too picky. Therefore, Symbol redirect vote 4.svg new reviewer requested. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT4:...that Brod Pete, wrote a segment on Bubble Gang, that is a parody of a popular religious program, Ang Dating Daan, interpreting fairy tales and children's literature instead of religious scriptures?

More accurate version, less than 200 this time, and please Mendaliv please state where are the errors, you are just saying it, it's like accusing someone without evidence.-PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

Honestly, there are errors that are obvious to me just skimming the article; it needs a copyediting by a third party at the very least. If I were to go through the trouble of listing them all, I might as well just fix them. I haven't the time for that right now. Therefore, I'm just going to go with my earlier recommendation: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut

Albert Trott

5x expanded by Sahara4u (talk), Lugnuts (talk). Nominated by Sahara4u (talk) at 23:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Do we have a photo from before he got the pegleg? EEng (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record here's the original photo - DO NOT RUN THIS PHOTO WITH HOOK
  • @EEng, changed the photo! —Zia Khan 02:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor White

  • ... that photographer Minor White included two copies of the same photograph in his 1974 work Totemic Sequence, flipping the second copy upside down?

5x expanded by Lexaxis7 (talk). Self nominated at 18:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

  • "Flipping upside down" is technically vague. What really happened is the image was reflected over the horizontal axis but that doesn't make for a very good hook. At the risk of being a bit colloquial...
ALT1 ... that photographer Minor White's 1974 Totemic Sequence presents two versions of the same image, flipping the negative over vertically between the first and the second?

EEng (talk)

Kingstonian F.C.

A Kingstonian player (in red and white) shields the ball

  • ... that Kingstonian F.C. (pictured in red and white) have had six different names?
  • Reviewed: Put here
  • Comment: Any alts are welcome. I would quite like to use a picture with the nom

Improved to Good Article status by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 12:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Do you have any images that won't inadvertently arouse spanking fetishists? EEng (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC) I don't know what's got into me lately.
    • Is that a bad thing? If it generates views... Anyway, in answer to the question, no. And personally I can't see that being too much of an issue, especially if it airs at UK time, where pretty much everyone knows how football works. Thanks, Matty.007 06:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it's well known that Brits have a special love for spanking -- all those boarding schools and so on. Orgiastic breaches of the peace could be the result, threatening the very fabric of the social order, especially at tea-time. As a precautionary measure perhaps we should post a link to the Riot Act for ready reference by public officials. EEng (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I get what EEng means: it's not such a great picture for the subject because of the hands because at first glance, you've got a guy swinging back to give the other player a hit; you expect an article about an incident of a player being hit. If you can't get a different image, you might consider uploading a crop of just the Kingstonian F.C. player. It would also obviate the "in red and white" (though you'd probably still have to say "player pictured" or something). It's also not such a great photo because all the detail of the Kingstonian F.C. player's face is lost because of the exposure. DYK images should look good, and give detail, at 100x100... this image, with this composition, is an image of a soccer player about to hit another soccer player. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I just looked at it in Photoshop: it's a bit more serious than I had initially thought. While cropping is definitely possible, the backlighting makes it really hard (if impossible) to boost the foreground brightness without completely blowing out the background. And looking at this image at 100px, you have to realize something: his kit isn't red and white in this image at 100px, it's blue-grey and almost black. You can't distinguish that it's red without the text. Without cropping, I would say this image is not about Kingstonian F.C., but about the other team's player. Sorry, I don't think you should run this DYK with this image. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Barkhane

Created by Fotoriety (talk). Self nominated at 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough and, to my judgement, neutrally written. No QPQ needed as it seems to be the first DYK nomination of the author - well done!
I have a few concerns though. Firstly, there are a few examples of close paraphrasing that would benefit from being re-written. The hook itself is one, and another sentence very close to the original in the source is "The French forces will be supplied with 20 helicopters, 200 armoured vehicles, 10 transport aircraft, 6 fighter planes and 3 drones." I think it should not be too big a deal to re-work the prose though. My second concern is about the sources. The news sources are reliable but given the nature of the article I was surprised to not find anything sourced from more official sources, like the French ministry of Defence or Foreign Affairs. I think the article would benefit from nor relying solely on information from news agencies. If it's in French, it's no problem - AGF.
My third concern is the biggest, and here I would appreciate input from other editors as well. The article is about a military operation which has just started, and chances are, that there will be reason to change the article, perhaps radically, relatively soon. In other words, it may not be completely stable? I'd appreciate some thoughts and ideas from the author and other editors on how to handle this.
OK, so these are a few concerns, but I'm sure they can be solved rather easily. Yakikaki (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I will try and focus on it when i have some truly valuable free time, perhaps in the coming days. Thanks for your detailed assessment.Fotoriety (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 21[edit]

Shamir (musician), Northtown (EP) and If It Wasn't True

  • ... that "If It Wasn't True" from countertenor Shamir's 2014 Northtown EP was called "Your Favorite Breakup Song" by Vogue and "semidissonant pulses tickled by antsy snares and hi-hats" by Dazed?
  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 04:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

Infamous Second Son

Improved to Good Article status by CR4ZE (talk). Self nominated at 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I can't seem to find anything in sources supporting any of these hooks, unless perhaps I missed the mention of Banksy in the video linked. I personally find ALT#2 the most attention-grabbing, but let's find a source that explicitly states in words (not video) that he inspired the game's protagonist. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All three hooks are supported with RS. The original hook's source was admittedly a little weak, so I've added a secondary source to Gameplay that supports both the climbing-of-building and dashing-up-building parts. Both alts are directly supported, and I'm not aware of any guideline that says you can't source facts from a video preview. It wasn't a problem at GAN. CR4ZE (tc) 00:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg now we're good. While videos aren't bad per se, I do know that some editors prefer text. I don't see any problems with paraphrasing, so I'll go with the main one now. QPQ is also complete. Good work. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I had my fingers crossed for the main hook because I thought it was the most interesting. Cheers. CR4ZE (tc) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Direction générale de la surveillance du territoire

  • ...that Morocco suspended judicial cooperation with France over torture claims against its intelligence service the DGST
  • Comment: Source here BBC

Created/expanded by Tachfin (talk). Self nominated at 12:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

José Carlos Cocarelli

  • ... that José Carlos Cocarelli studied the piano in New York on a scholarship from the Brazilian government and won important competitions?
  • ALT1:... that a New York Times review noted pianist José Carlos Cocarelli's "thoughtful rubatos and ... almost brooding intensity"?
  • Reviewed: Wilhelm Münter Rolfsen
  • Comment: I would prefer to say something about his playing rather than competitions, but am not yet happy with the wording. See also talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

5x expanded by Voceditenore (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Comment: Voceditenore did so much that I am almost ashamed to list myself also as a contributor any more. However, I started expanding, and I almost got blocked for it ;)
  • Yes, ALT2 is probably a better hook. The first two don't seem particularly 'beguiling' to the reader. Gerda, what talk page are you referring to when you say "See also talk page"? I don't see anything related to these hooks at Talk:José Carlos Cocarelli. But maybe I'm missing something? Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Texas Wrestling Hall of Fame

Created/expanded by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]). Nominated by (talk) at 01:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Neither hook fact is cited by a reliable source. Nowhere in the body does it state the Hall of Fame is the only of its kind in Texas. ALT1 is attributed to a source that has gone 404, and all signs point to "Cauliflower Alley Club" being unreliable. CR4ZE (tc) 13:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

De Akkermolen

Front view of the windmill De Akkermolen

  • ... that De Akkermolen (pictured) from the early 17th century was in constant use as a gristmill until it was damaged in 1950?
  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Taketa (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 23:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Well, it's long enough and a GA. The hook is verified. BlueMoonset, what else is there to do? Drmies (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Drmies, you're uniquely positioned to do a close paraphrase check, since you read Dutch and can see whether there are signs of direct translation (or close to it) from the sources. This clearly wasn't done as part of the GA review. Looking at a Google Translate of FN2, I don't see any confirmation of the extraordinary claim that the mill was in constant use as a gristmill from the early 17th century through 1950. (The word "constant" doesn't, to my mind, allow for any significant downtime, including for extensive repairs lasting months or even a couple of years.) There's also something odd about the wording: the "from the early 17th century" doesn't fit well given the sentence structure. A general problem is that we don't know just when the mill was built and put into service: FN1 says "c. 1600", because of a mention in 1605 ("one assumes it was rebuilt" is how Google Translate puts it) and FN2 says "around [rond] 1625"—a quarter century is a bit of a difference. Also, how reliable are these two sources? The "Further reading" section of the article gives two additional sources, both of which were cited at the bottom of the FN1 source. Shouldn't a GA have relied on these directly, or is that only considered desirable at the FA level (or not even then, perhaps)? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)
  • User:BlueMoonset, that's a lot of (valid) questions. Let's see.

    1. The image has a 3.0 license, so that's good enough, no?

    2. I don't have much of a problem with the wording in the hook, or with the date. We have, as you note, two sources, with slightly different dates--in this case (such cases), 25 years difference doesn't bother me so much, and I have no doubt that "early 17th century" is written in that way to play it safe. Ref. 2, from De Hollandsche Molen, does not mention a 1605 rebuild, but note that ref. 1 does list the 1625 date--albeit with two question marks.

    3. I find these sources to be good enough for windmills; esp. De Hollandsche Molen has a decent reputation and is comprehensive (but the real expert is @Mjroots:!) However, in this case I am bothered by the terse phrasing: it states that the mill was already a banmolen in 1550--but since it does not mention that the earlier watermill had been replaced by the current mill's predecessor, it has a watermill as a banmolen, which strikes me as, to put it mildly, terrifically odd. But the account in our article leans more on the other reference; by the way, I found no all-too close paraphrasing/translating at all.

    4. It's not my article. If it were, I'd have gotten those two books. If I had reviewed this for GA, I would have asked for it. (I'm about to go look at that review.) I am very hesitant about promoting articles that have only web sites for references, esp. if print publications are available. For DYK I think it's decent enough.

    5. Oh, the hook. I think that in this area "in continuous use" probably means "not used as a mustard mill in the meantime" or something like that, which is why I didn't have a problem with it, but I see where you're coming from. Perhaps Mjroots has an opinion here as well--they're a GA and DYK veteran as well, and apparently someone made them admin. I'll gladly defer to their opinion. Thanks BMS, Drmies (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Drmies, thanks for the comprehensive response. To reply: (1) the 3.0 license is fine (and it's in the article, also a requirement), (2) the "early 17th century" struck me as indeed playing it safe, but there's always the possibility that the mill came back on line in 1598, so playing it safer might be better. However, I think the phrase should probably be displaced to later in the hook; right now it just doesn't read well to me. For (3), let's re-ping @Mjroots:. Also, you didn't quite finish this one, so I'm not sure what you didn't find, though I suspect it's close paraphrasing; if so, that's a good thing, and thanks for checking. For (4), it sounds like the sources are sufficiently reliable and thus good enough for DYK, so that's okay here. With (5), "constant" (or "continuous") strikes me as overblown; I'd want more specific wording in the sources for such an extraordinary claim in both article and hook. Sorry I forgot the four tildes last time; I've corrected my omission so the time is indicated, and included them here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I finished that sentence, and it is as you thought. (Occasionally I accidentally select an entire sentence and then overwrite it with this mini keyboard.) I am going to have a look at the GA review, but what shall we do with the hook? I rephrase, or the author rephrases, and you approve that part? It's easy to do, actually--

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've made a couple of changes, replacing {{infobox building}} with {{infobox windmill}}. Sources all meet RS, with the first two being excellent sources that can be trusted implicitly. The issue re "downtime" - yes, the mill would have had some downtime - storm damage, replacement of life-expired sails etc. What I think is being stated here is that the mill never spent a considerable period out of use due to a lack of will to work it. In olden days, a damaged mill would generally have been repaired fairly quickly. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Mjroots--if you're OK with the article and the (revised) hook, can you tick it off? I think that's what BlueMoonset prefers. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol confirmed.svg - per discussion above, ready to go. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Many thanks. I've just labeled ALT1 and formatted it so it's more visible for the promoter, and struck the original hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Risley Carlisle

"The Risley"

Created by Rob at Houghton (talk). Self nominated at 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article is new enough (created July 21), long enough, uses in-line citations and is neutrally written. The hooks are short enough and interesting enough. Spot-checking finds no evidence of unduly close paraphrasing, copyright violation or plagiarism. The main hook is sourced to this book which is not available to me in a google books preview; good faith therefore assumed on the part of the nominator (the Wikipedian in residence at Harvard's Houghton Library). The alt 1 hook is supported by this source. Image in public domain per Houghton Library notation. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold it. First of all, "credited for the origin" makes no sense, and as I read the article there are conflicts in the definitions of what a "Risley" is said be at Risley act versus in this article (esp. with respect to whether it has to involve children). This needs to be sorted out. Also, article says "listed in the Guiness Book of World Records" but doesn't say what for, and neither does the source the article cites. It sounds a bit fishy. EEng (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Eeng - Do you have a problem with the alt 1 hook? Also, you may want to alert the nominator to your concerns, so he can address them. Cbl62 (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Alt1 looks OK on its surface anyway. I assume the nominator is watching. EEng (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to alert me, I'm paying attention here already. How does "credited for the origin" make no sense? Like, no sense at all? The Guiness record is in the external link, and the Risley act started with children before it came to refer to juggling anything with the feet (added that info). --Rob at Houghton (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It means unless we're in a time warp back to 1800 [27] it's an unusual construction that doesn't really fit here -- credited with would be much better. I'm still not seeing what the Guiness record was for -- "most kids juggled with feet"? EEng (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(undenting a bit) Okay, the construction was unusual. I was worried that you literally had no sense of what that meant; it seems there was at least minimal sense after all! Alt hook added. Updating text for Guinness Record information on article too. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "credited with ... by juggling" doesn't make sense either. Howzabout

EEng (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this works very well. I like "originating" much better; not sure why I didn't think of it myself. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Leave your check at D East, 5th row, 4th case, 3rd shelf from the top, behind the portfolios. EEng (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghassan Alian

  • ... that Ghassan Alian is the first non-Jewish commander of the Golani Brigade?

Created by Fotoriety (talk). Self nominated at 04:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Only 1291 characters of readable prose per DYK Checker. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I have a few close paraphrasing concerns. And while the hook is cited in article, and the source mentions the media coverage of the hook fact, it would be nice to see a few of the articles that covered it at the time. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 22[edit]

Robert A. Brooks

Created by Elonka (talk). Self nominated at 15:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. Hook tweaked - subject must be in bold. Article appears well cited. The hook idea is good, but the hook does not quite match up with the article itself, "the building featured the company's name spelled out in morse code in the southern facade of the windows", and the second ref (first one does not mention Morse Code) states "a fenestration pattern spells out the name of the company in Morse code". QPQ needed. Dup detector shows up close paraphrasing such as "cencom cable associates and brooks fiber properties both of which were sold for billions of dollars in" compared to "cencom cable associates and brooks fiber properties two companies that he sold for billions of dollars in" in ref 1. I don't understand why there are seven bare URLs at the end of the References section? Edwardx (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That was quick! Thanks for the review. To answer your questions:
  • Fenestration pattern means "arrangement of windows across the facade of a building". I chose a more common-language interpretation of this. I also added another source (Post-Dispatch) with simpler wording, "the windows in the back spell out ..." but if you'd like to rework the hook, I'm open to that?
  • For the dup detector, I think the sentence is okay as-is, but am open to suggestions if you feel strongly that it should be reworded.
  • For the bare URLs, that was just because the article was in-process. They have been fixed.  :)
  • QPQ in-process, I haven't forgotten! QPQ done: Edward Porter Alexander. --Elonka 04:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (additional note) I've added an image to the article, which we could probably add to the DYK. Would you be open to that?
Thanks, --Elonka 02:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that when telecommunications entrepreneur Robert A. Brooks built his corporate headquarters (pictured) in St. Louis, the building's windows spelled out the name of the company in Morse code? Elonka 03:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Windows in a Morse code pattern

  • ALT2: ... that when telecommunications entrepreneur Robert A. Brooks had his corporate headquarters (pictured) built in St. Louis, the arrangement of windows spelled out the company's name in Morse code?
  • Thanks for doing the QPQ, but you also need to check for paraphrasing/copyvio, regardless of it passing GA. I've tweaked your ALT1 to create an ALT2, which I feel is clearer. I think you need to reword that sentence, and your seeming reluctance might suggest that there may be other paraphrasing/copyvio issues. Is it possible to find an online source for the frist source, his obituary, as it cited seven times? I'm not sure if the image licence is suitable for it to appear on the front page. Edwardx (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the image, it is freely licensed, relevant, and already in the article. It appears to comply with everything at Wikipedia:Did you know#Images?
  • Regarding the cited obituary, I'm not aware of any freely available online version, but there are some behind registration, such as here.[28] I found a copy through Newsbank, if you have access to a library database, or I can email you a copy if you want.
  • Regarding the challenged sentence, I reworded the lead paragraph a bit.
  • Thanks for the suggestion of alternate hook, ALT2 is fine with me. --Elonka 20:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Agreed, the image is fine for the front page. As for the obit, I found a free one in under a minute, and have added the URL to your reference. Dup detector: WP article and obit compared raises copyvio issues such as "a founding director of onecomm communications which later became part of nextel communications" which is identical to the source. My earlier concerns were justified, and I think you need to go through the whole article checking for copyvio/close paraphrasing. Edwardx (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. I have reviewed the dup detector's list, but I'm not seeing any copyvio issues. Regarding the Onecomm sentence, it would seem to fall under WP:LIMITED. I checked several sources and they were all stating the OneComm involvement in pretty much the same way.[29] It's not a crucial fact for the article, so I just went ahead and deleted the sentence. Will that be sufficient to clear the article for DYK? --Elonka 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Chef (film)

  • ... that the 2014 film Chef has been called both Jon Favreau's best and worst film by critics?

Improved to Good Article status by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Alt1 - ... that the film Chef is Jon Favreau's first film about cooking, whose script was written by himself in about two weeks?

The Boat Race 2011

  • ... that the proportion of rowers at the 2011 Boat Race who were British was the highest for a decade?

Improved to Good Article status by The Rambling Man (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 13:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • "highest for a decade" --> "highest in a decade"??? Maybe it's one of the Oxford things. Or Cambridge. EEng (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 1986

  • ... that after the 1986 Boat Race, the Cambridge stroke said he was "just stirring the tea while the others did the work"?

Improved to Good Article status by The Rambling Man (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • "The Cambridge stoke" -- this would be after the switch to coal-fired boats? EEng (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Fixed spelling to "stroke". 97198 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC))
You laughed -- admit it. EEng (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't see what you were on about until 97198 fixed the typo. Thanks, Matty.007 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng, you'll be happy to know that your nautical humour wasn't lost on me. :) 97198 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It fills me with a feeling of warmth and closeness to the entire human race! EEng (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Garçonne (magazine)

  • Reviewed: Typhoon Nabi
  • Comment: I know the use of "whose" to refer to an object can be controversial, so if anyone can phrase the hook better, please do!

Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 11:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I think (although cited and qualified with "roughly") that tomboy is a poor translation for garçonne. It think it is more interesting that the German title was displaced by a French one. How about:
ALT1 ...that the Weimar-era German magazine Frauenliebe was relaunched as Garçonne because the French title was thought to be "more modish"?Belle (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol voting keep.svg Long enough, new enough, no copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing (from the sources I could check), neutral enough, cited enough, QPQ done. (original hook is fine, but pick mine, pick mine, PICK MINE!) Belle (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I like your hook, Belle, but I fear it's not entirely accurate - that wasn't the reason for the relaunch. It was renamed for legal reasons, and the author of the source mentions that the new title was "more modish" without implying that it was the reason for the name change. 97198 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Fair point, so I will cheat: ALT1 ...that when the Weimar-era German magazine Frauenliebe was relaunched as Garçonne, the French title was thought to be "more modish"? Belle (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


An illustration showing protogalaxies colliding.

Created/expanded by Anthul (talk). Nominated by Anthul (talk) at 10:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg New enough, log enough, fully referenced. Hooks fine. AGF on offline source. No QPQ required. Nice image with good licence. Good to go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an orange tag on the article requesting a review from a subject expert. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Until the tag is resolved, this nomination is on hold. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That tag was inserted by the article creator, whom you failed to notify that there was a problem per the procedures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I have removed the tag. I had put it there because I am not much of an "expert" and thought that this was necessary, discussion with other editors offline told me that it isn't. Hopefully this resolves the problem. Anthul (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ferhat Akbaş

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self nominated at 10:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

House of the Rising Sun (Lost)

  • Comment: Not a self-nom

Improved to Good Article status by Ruby2010 (talk). Nominated by 23W (talk) at 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

Just adding that the hook is sourced to Ref 11, which is a DVD special feature. If I can find an online link (such as YouTube) then I will add it here. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013
Found a link on Youtube [30] (about 3:40 onwards). Ruby 2010/2013 02:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Aphaenogaster mayri

Fossil Aphaenogaster mayri

  • ... that over 200 fossils were known of Aphaenogaster mayri (pictured) when the species was described in 1930?

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 04:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but none of the sources mention the species, except perhaps this one (Carpenter, F. M. (1930). "The fossil ants of North America.". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 70: 1–66. ), which I can't access for some reason. You might want to check and see if the URL is correct. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've updated the pdf link for Fossil ants of North America and you should have not problem accessing it now. The other references are specifically addressing the changes in age assignment for the Florissant formation.--Kevmin § 16:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hope you don't mind a few more suggestions. It might help if you reorganized the References to have both a "notes" section and a bibliography, where you could put the entire The fossil ants of North America citation, and then reference specific pages in the notes section, such as "Carpenter, 1930, pg. 24" for the "200 fossils" claim, or "Carpenter, 1930, pg. 30" for the description. It would make it easier for the reader to find the specific source for each claim. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I will confess I have never been a fan of the notes + Bibliography style, as its not one that is found in paleontology research papers at all. The Aphaenogaster mayri information is found on pages 30 and 31 of Carpenter, with the 200 specimens statement being found at the end of the notes section on page 31 of the description.--Kevmin § 13:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that over 200 fossils of Aphaenogaster mayri (pictured) were known when the species was described in 1930? EEng (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on July 23[edit]

Space Cavern

  • ALT1:... that one reviewer wrote that the box art for Space Cavern was better than the actual game?
  • Comment: Not a self-nom

Improved to Good Article status by Taylor Trescott (talk). Nominated by 23W (talk) at 23:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

Sophie Thornhill

  • ... that in her international debut season, visually impaired cyclist Sophie Thornhill won two gold medals with one guide and another two with a different one?

Created by Espresso Addict (talk). Self nominated at 22:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough (created new on 23 July), long enough (readable prose size = 2882 B (481 words)), and conforms to policies. The hook is properly formatted, it is supported clearly in the article with a suitable reference, and it is interesting. Nice article – well done. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maynard (broadcaster)

Flying Maynard

  • ... that Australian entertainer Maynard (pictured) made a career out of being "happily unfashionable"; sometimes wearing "a stylish combination of pyjamas and floral beach wear"?

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Gronk Oz (talk). Self nominated at 08:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Parsurameswar Temple

A temple with a doorway

Improved to Good Article status by Ssriram mt (talk), Hamiltonstone (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 12:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

With a round number approximation is understood:

ALT1... that Parsurameswar Temple (pictured) is believed to be 1400 years old?

EEng (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Henry Michell Wagner

Moved to mainspace by Hassocks5489 (talk), Zigzig20s (talk). Nominated by Hassocks5489 (talk) at 22:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Dick Burns

  • ... that baseball historian Bill James included the following in his list of retrobermanisms: "(See a doctor immediately if your) Dick Burns"?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 02:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I suspect that "retrobermanisms" will mean absolutely nothing to the average reader (and in fact it only seems to get 49 hits on Google). 97198 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that's correct, which may make people more likely to check out the article. If use of that terms is a problem, though, we could go with this alt. Cbl62 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • alt 1 ... that baseball historian Bill James included the following in his list of retroactive player nicknames: "(See a doctor immediately if your) Dick Burns"?
  • I agree with cbl. I think it's allowable to drop the parens for the purposes of the hook.
ALT2... that "See a doctor immediately if your Dick Burns" is a Bill James "retrobermanism"?


ALT3... that Bill James suggested, "See a doctor immediately if your Dick Burns"?

EEng (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am ok with the original or any of alts 1 to 3. Cbl62 (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Skara Missal

Skara Missal

  • ... that the Skara Missal (illuminated page pictured), a 12th-century book, may have been made in England, France or Norway, but belongs to a library in Sweden?

Created by Yakikaki (talk). Self nominated at 21:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg The claim of where the book may have been "made" (do we like "made" there? I feel like another verb might be preferable, like "written" or "composed", etc.) is based in part on a Swedish-language source that I, at least, cannot read, but the other source used makes the claim seem very reasonable. I'm a relative novice at DYK review, so I'm not sure if this is "hooky" enough -- since I'm familiar with Skara (I've traveled there), I thought the foreign origins of the missal were at least a little intriguing, but I do wonder if there's a way of making the missal sound even more exotic or exciting? The image is PD and has rollover text on this page (but not on the article page...is that ok? the DYK review guidelines don't make it clear where the rollover text needs to appear), it's certainly relevant to the article, and it's intriguing (if a little muddy in color) in the small thumbnail size used for DYK. Anyway, as it is, overall it looked good to me. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review! I have added an alt-text to the picture in the article. The degree of "hookiness" is up to the reviewer as I understand it, so if you think it can be improved, let's try to do so. :-) Perhaps this could be an idea?
Alt 1: ... that even though the 12th-century Skara Missal (illuminated page pictured) has been referred to as "Sweden's oldest book", its origins remain unclear? Yakikaki (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the alt-text add to the photo in the article! And for being patient with a fairly novice DYK reviewer. :-) Honestly, I prefer this Alt 1 hook -- a little mystery, and a superlative claim, seem a better fit for DYK, to me. Do I need to use some fancy checkmark symbol to indicate my preference, or is this comment sufficient? :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! Yes, let's go for Alt 1, then. To be honest, I'm not sure if you need to put a new tick somewhere... maybe it's a good idea, to clarify that it's for Alt 1, though? Yakikaki (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Bryn Mawr College Deanery

Lockwood de Forest Swing in the Deanery

  • ... that the Bryn Mawr College Deanery's "Blue Room" was considered one of the best American examples of a pre-Raphaelite interior?

Created by 2moore (talk). Nominated by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) at 20:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

Frozen Run

The lower reaches of Frozen Run

  • ... that a 1997 book listed Frozen Run (pictured) as one of the most interesting stream names in Pennsylvania?

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Created on 22 July, long enough, sufficiently referenced, no close paraphrasing found on spotcheck of sources. AGF for original hook, which is sourced offline. Image is PD and QPQ has been done. Here's an alt hook which I found quite amusing, if anyone wants to check it; otherwise, the original hook is good to go with an AGF tick.

Symbol voting keep.svg Trying to interest readers with a hook that says the subject is boring is a novel approach. Either hook is supported by citations (AGF on the first one), but I do prefer the ALT as it is more challenging to my short attention sp...a butterfly! Belle (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 24[edit]

Squaw Island (Canandaigua Lake), Sucker Brook

Squaw Island from Canandaigua City Pier

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self nominated at 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Javed Manzil

Created by Faizan (talk). Self nominated at 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Naval Medical Research Center

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self nominated at 03:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Short Term 12

Improved to Good Article status by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 13:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Does anyone else think this hook isn't a good idea? EEng (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if you provided a reason, but for what it's worth I've just added an ALT2. 97198 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Because we shouldn't be touting a recent film on MP based on the opinions of 142 self-selected anonymous people. EEng (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you meant to type 146 named professional film critics selected by the website, but you know. 97198 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? Oh fuck. Oops. Uh oh. I think I was thinking of something else. Never mind. Sorry. EEng (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think ALT2 is better anyway. I think a DYK should be about something not readily apparent or widely known. Anyone with Gmail is likely to have seen the original hook pop up in their text ad feed in the last year or two. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed (not that I have any remaining credibility in this discussion). EEng (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to review this a couple of days ago and got distracted, but I also find the original hook to be pretty uninteresting. ALT2 is much better suited as a DYK. CR4ZE (tc) 13:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

After the Bath, Woman drying herself

Naked woman (arty though, none of your internet filth)

Created by Theramin (talk). Nominated by Belle (talk) at 00:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • It hasn't got any inline citations so you might want to hold off reviewing it until I have time to convert them (I don't know how soon that will be, fairly soon I should think but I'm flighty) Belle (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I was quicker than I thought. Get reviewing, you bunch of slackers.
ALT1 ...that Edgar Degas said that if "you looked through a keyhole" you might see scenes like his After the Bath, Woman drying herself (pictured)?::Worrying encouragement for Peeping Toms in both hooks ("it's for an art project!") but since I don't have a keyhole in my bathroom door and you don't know where I live, I'm fine. Belle (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Edgar Degas's pastel After the Bath, Woman drying herself was a significant influence on Francis Bacon's Three Studies of the Male Back? (a non-pervy alt, citation is good) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
On the case. Hafspajen (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg, long enough, new enough, 2810 characters - good to go, use ALT1 hook. Hafspajen (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)·

Akira Sasō

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk); Kodomo no Kodomo based in part on content by Auric and Curly Turkey. Self nominated at 11:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on July 25[edit]

Markus Schäfer

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg New enough, long enough, German enough to force me to AGF on the sources, QPQ done, neutral, hook fact cited.
ALT1 ... that in celebration of the tercentenary of the birth of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, tenor Markus Schäfer performed in his oratorio Die Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Jesu at the Rheingau Musik Festival? (might be a bit long, but I wanted to suggest one that doesn't make the performance look like a coincidence. Gerda can comment or the prep-builder can choose.) Belle (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
We could use the festival's wording "C.P.E. Bach: 300th Birthday":
ALT2: ... that in celebration of "C.P.E. Bach: 300th Birthday", tenor Markus Schäfer performed in his oratorio Die Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Jesu at the Rheingau Musik Festival?
That doesn't sound very natural in English without a genitive. Belle (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statue of Queen Victoria, Sydney

  • ALT1:The first hook is deliberately misleading (in the 'april fools' style). For something more direct I propose, "DYK that the last Royal statue to be erected in Australia, Queen Victoria, was also the last one to be erected in Ireland."
  • Reviewed: The Banquet of Cleopatra

Created by Wittylama (talk). Self nominated at 09:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, well-sourced with many online sources, and no copyvio issues. The hook is amusing and attention-catching as well. Looks good. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ada Cherry Kearton

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk), Voceditenore (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Thank you, - I should have checked, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Taro Yoko

  • ... that video game director and scenario writer Taro Yoko uses a writing method he calls "backwards scriptwriting", where he builds the narrative starting with the ending?
  • ALT1 ... and that video game director Taro Yoko uses a method he calls "photo thinking" to visualize and manage story events?

Created by ProtoDrake (talk). Self nominated at 07:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New (25th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check, no QPQ necessary. One hold-up: the hook needs a ref right immediately following the fact in the article (see 3b). (Also, in general, all direct quotations need immediate refs per minref.) Let me know if you need a hand, and welcome to DYK! czar  17:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the issue, added a reference from the article that cites both story-writing methods detailed during his GDC seminar. And the direct quotes are from him, I think, as all the articles on the seminar use it. Also fixed a grammar error. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that the sentences (within the article) associated with the hook needed direct cites. E.g., after 'in other works of fiction, is "backwards scriptwriting".' (DYK hooks don't need their own footnotes.) And with WP:MINREF, all instances of a direct quotation within the article need a footnote to immediately follow the sentence. czar  18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried again. I also removed the quotes, as they didn't seem appropriate given a second look. I realize that I probably got it wrong. If I did, please explain exactly what I have to do and give an article as example that I can learn from. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You got it—looks good. I think the quotes were appropriate because it was a direct phrase of his (and not a common one, at that). I'd put them back. Is that "gloating" quote from the video? I didn't see it in the cited source. Anyway, it should have a direct citation for being a direct quote. Is there a reason for using Yoko instead of Yokoo? The article uses title the former but the text uses the latter. Also since you have some room in the hooks, might be worth expanding on what "backwards scriptwriting" and "photo thinking" actually are—otherwise it looks like jargon to a lay reader. I'll leave that last part up to you. czar  00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Done the direct quote referencing (the quote is from his own words in the video interview, but since there's scenes of violence, I need to use a secondary source so the video isn't blocked to unregistered users, like me). And don't blame me for the change. Someone else did that. "Taro Yoko" is the most common rendition of his name, if not the most accurate to the original Japanese. If necessary, I can move it or something, but I thought the most common rendition was the one to use, as it's the one he's most commonly called by in articles and such. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Hooks check out, gtg. I prefer the main hook as the second is more ambiguous (as per its reference). (Re: Yoko/Yokoo, it's fine as long as it's consistent.) Good work czar  13:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Lythrurus ardens

Created by Spirit of Eagle (talk). Self nominated at 03:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Hook cannot be used, and fact should be changed in article I'm afraid: ref says Unknown; probable bait bucket release. Will continue with review upon reply. Thanks, Matty.007 16:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT 1: ... that baby Lythrurus ardens grow to three-fifths of their adult size within a year?

I've added a new DYK hook. This one is stated with certainty within the text. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Pieter van Reede van Oudtshoorn

Created by HelenOnline (talk). Self nominated at 08:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

Glen Rounds

Created by Jwrosenzweig (talk). Self nominated at 05:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg QPQ done. New enough. Long enough. spot checking with dup detector reveals no significant close paraphrasing or copyvio. Referencing needs to be improved - six bare URLs need to be expanded. The Kerlan Award and North Carolina Award are both uncited. I'm sceptical about the claim in the article and hook. The cited source states "spent one summer traveling with fellow student Jackson Pollock, and another summer traveling with his teacher, Thomas Hart Benton" (not ACROSS America). Another source not cited in the article is rather more modest, "During one summer, Rounds took a road trip with Benton and Pollock to show them the Great American West." thepilot.com Edwardx (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Skr15081997 (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg The article has been designated as a GA within timescale, length is fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used, the hook is cited. Shouldn't acid, proton, and base be linked? Vladimir (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that in the Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory, an acid donates a proton and a base accepts it?
This might be a bit more catchy:
Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 23:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Between you and I

5x expanded by Drmies (talk). Self nominated at 03:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg We'll call this a 5x expansion, based on my experience converting Budd SPV-2000 from a redirect into an article. On those grounds it's a 289x prose expansion, which I guess we can allow. Expansion occurred in the last two days. The article is well-written and strongly referenced and explains an otherwise arcane but apparently notable grammatical controversy. I did not detect any close paraphrasing issues. Hook is verified and amusing; it would be nice if Garner had indicated who originally made the claim. Once QPQ is done we're good to go. Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mackensen, QPQ is done--thanks for your review and your kind words. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Casey

Photograph of Dan Casey, c. 1886-188

  • ... that Dan Casey (pictured) has been reported by some to have been the inspiration for the poem "Casey at the Bat"?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 16:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • To avoid the Charley Horse issue, howzabout
ALT1 ... that in later life, baseball player Dan Casey (pictured) claimed he was "Casey at the Bat"?

(and I think it's punchier). EEng (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't think we should be linking "Casey at the Bat." Prior practice had been to avoid linking other terms in the hook. The goal of DYK is to draw eyes to the nominated article, not to other, established articles. Cbl62 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Well if that's the guideline it's never followed -- hooks are routinely linked just like article content. However, I agree, actually, that nothing but the primary article ought to be linked, for exactly the reason you give. EEng (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

PLDT HOME: The Last Home Stand

Created by WayKurat (talk). Self nominated at 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

What's "push through"? EEng (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the confusing idiom. Now I realize that "push through" has many meanings after a quick search. -WayKurat (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Created by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Slight ce of ALT0. However, I think ALT1 would be better if it really became completely puzzling;
ALT2:... that Tarrantines attacked Montowampate while visiting Masconomet?

EEng (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 1990

  • ... that the 1990 Boat Race had the heaviest oarsman in the event's history?

Improved to Good Article status by The Rambling Man (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 13:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

Lazeric Jones

Jones wearing blue basketball jersey with text "UCLA 11" in yellow

Created by Bagumba (talk). Self nominated at 06:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, cited by inline citations, and free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Android 4.0

  • ... that from a design standpoint, Android 4.0 aimed to "[tone] down the geeky nerd quotient" of its predecessor?

Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 06:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

Poverty in Cyprus

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 04:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

Violence & Destruction, Islander (band)

Created by AdditionSubtraction (talk). Self nominated at 11:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I'll take this over the next few days. I've made extensive copy edits to the article for the album, but nothing that should disqualify me as a reviewer. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I have some issues with this. After copyedits, and a lot of removal of verbiage, the band's article simply doesn't have enough left, at some 1200 characters. The author may disagree with my edits, but hey, they were necessary. Now, the article for the album is long enough, though there also extensive cuts had to be made (if only to that long laundry list of genres!). I got a few other, minor problems as well--of all the sources linked, there's only one (one and a half) that calls this "Christian" music. So I removed that genre from the album, and I wonder if it shouldn't be cut from the band article as well.

    But that's by the by. In the meantime we need to figure out if this hook should be cut to a single-article hook, or if the band article is going to be beefed up with valid, verified content. And then, I don't like this hook at all: most of it is a quote, the brackets need fixing, and the phrasing is awkward. Can't we come up with something better? Drmies (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Drmies, You have done a tremendous job on those articles. So, I hope you keep up the same great work. Thank you!AdditionSubtraction (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that, according to Jesus Freak Hideout, thirteen years after the death of the genre, Islander, on Violence & Destruction, "put together a really solid collection of songs" of nu and rap metal? Drmies (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So, the article is good to go, as far as I'm concerned: new enough, long enough, etc. But note that this is just the one article, for the album, not for the band. I proposed a new hook, but this needs to be reviewed by someone else, eh BlueMoonset? This hook is a bit less elegant and tight than I'd like, in part because the review speaks in the singular when referring to two genres. Another reviewer might come up with another hook. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 26[edit]

Darren Espanto

Created by 001Jrm (talk). Self nominated at 02:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

2001 CECAFA Cup

  • ... that the 2001 CECAFA Cup contained the biggest margin of victory in the competition's history?

5x expanded by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 17:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hook and length verified. IMO, it would be interesting to include that margin. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 02:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt 1: ... that the 2001 CECAFA Cup contained the biggest margin of victory in the competition's history, with a 10 - 1 scoreline?
  • Alt 2: ... that the 2001 CECAFA Cup contained the biggest margin of victory in the competition's history, with Uganda beating Djibouti 10 - 1 scoreline? Thanks, Matty.007 07:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Valentin Wolfenstein

Valentin Wolfenstein (circa 1880)

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self nominated at 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Yves Agid

Yves Agid

  • ... that French neurologist Yves Agid (pictured) has won the grand prix?

Created by Skr15081997 (talk). Self nominated at 02:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Indianapolis Traction Terminal

Indianapolis Traction Terminal

Created by Mackensen (talk). Self nominated at 23:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Symbol voting keep.svg Article is new enough, long enough and has adequate references (though some sources are off-line) with no evidence of plagiarism; hook facts have in-line citations; hook is appropriate length supported by off-line reference taken in good faith; photo was published before 1923 so it is Public Domain.--Orygun (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Melanie Hawtin

Melanie Hawtin

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self nominated at 23:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new, long enough, and contains appropriate citations. No obvious COPYVIO or close paraphrase problems. Hook is cited and seems neutral. Image is from Commons, has alt text, is relevant, and can be seen at 100x100. Looks good to go. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Lake County Examiner

  • ... that when the town of Lakeview, Oregon, was destroyed by a fire in 1900, the staff of the Lake County Examiner saved enough equipment and material to publish a special edition the day after the fire?

5x expanded by Orygun (talk). Self nominated at 03:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Hkonmaing I of Onbaung–Hsipaw

Created by Hybernator (talk). Self nominated at 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on July 27[edit]


DBZ trafo

  • ... that the two basic transformer (pictured) constructions in common use today are based on designs described in patent applications from 1885?
  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Cblambert (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Megan Fletcher

  • ALT1:... that Megan Fletcher won the 70kg women's judo at the 2014 Commonwealth Games despite having tape on her face for an injury to her nose?
  • Reviewed: Put here
  • Comment: Commonwealth Games entry, please review ASAP

5x expanded by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 16:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, fully referenced. QPQ required. Hook is not in its reference Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Spruce Run (Little Fishing Creek)

Spruce Run at Pennsylvania Route 254, looking upstream

  • ... that more than 80 species of woodland herbs are found near Spruce Run (pictured)

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 14:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough, long enough, it has adequate references with no evidence of plagiarism; hook is appropriate length and reference is good; hook fact has in-line citations; and photo is editor’s own work. One comment … since “woodland herb” is not well defined, I recommend adding a couple of examples to hook. Ferns and sedges were specifically cited in hook source so here is alternative hook with those examples included:
ALT: …that more than 80 species of woodland herbs are found near Spruce Run (pictured) including fifteen fern species and twelve sedge species?
Symbol confirmed.svg Using either hook, DYK is good to go.--Orygun (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Christine Jones (police officer)

  • ...that Christine Jones oversaw the training of police officers to recognise mental health crises as medical emergencies?

Created by HJ Mitchell (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 10:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I know it's cited in the article, but please cite directly after hook fact. No QPQ needed as non-self nom. Alt 2 is good, but original and alt 1 need to be directly cited. No close paraphrasing in spotchecks, new enough, long enough, not a stub (changed templates, definitely not stub). Everything good apart from the one cite. Thanks, Matty.007 07:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on procedure for its own sake, and I'm not sure why DYK is enforcing rules that don't apply even to featured article nominations, but fine, I'll jump through the silly hoops this time and I just won't bother nominating the next article I write. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. I think the rule is so that it's swiftly checkable, and the reason I enforced it is that if I didn't, someone probably would have called me up on it (knowing my luck). Sorry for the delay, Matty.007 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Church of All Saints (Sutton Courtenay)

The church tower


  • Reviewed: New editor

Created by Coatesinchocolate (talk). Nominated by Gilderien (talk) at 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length and date ok. Photo is on Commons. Not a self-nom, thus no QPQ needed. But the hook fact is not supported by a direct reference. --Soman (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

All-you-can-eat seats (baseball)

Created by Yoninah (talk). Self nominated at 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

I generally like this better, but my concern is that it makes it sound like any seat gives you this privilege. Howzabout
EEng (talk) 15:22, 28 Jul