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
Stats WP:DYKSTATS

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

To refresh this page, click here.

Contents


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.
I.
Create the nomination subpage.

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

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

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

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several 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.

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on May 19[edit]

One Million Plan

Created by Oncenawhile (talk). Self nominated at 12:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm reluctant to get involved in anything Israel/Palestine related, but the way that this hook is written, readers might well infer that the "Zionist leadership" is intended to refer to the Government of Israel, which the Jewish Agency for Israel is not. We may know that the State of Israel did not exist until 1948, but most readers will not. This hook is pejorative, not NPOV, and needs to be reconsidered. Edwardx (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Edwardx, hmm, well you've got me thinking. In simple terms, the Jewish Agency became the government of Israel on independence - Ben Gurion was executive chairman of the former (and the WZO) and on independence became the unelected prime minister of Israel. The term "Zionist leadership" is not pejorative or POV- it follows scholarly usage, is a literal description given that the Jewish Agency was an arm of the WZO, and it also follows David Ben-Gurion's own wiki article.
So whilst I agree we should cater for the vast majority of readers who may not be familiar with all this, I am not sure what to replace it with that would not be either inaccurate or overly long and clunky. How about simply the Jewish Agency for Palestine (as it was then called)?
Oncenawhile (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for replying. The reference cited in the first paragraph of the article to support the hook makes no mention of it being "official policy", merely a "Zionist plan". Please see [1]. Edwardx (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Edwardx, that is sourced in reference 8. I will move the references around to make it more clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you are still using Ehrlich to support the first sentence of para 1, when that source makes no such claim to it being an "official policy". Edwardx (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • See reference 2, Meir-Glitzenstein, who uses the exact phrase "official policy". Is that ok? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Even if Meir-Glitzenstein is claiming it was "official policy", she provides no citation for her claim. Furthermore, if it really was "official policy", then it would be reasonable to suppose that this would be much more widely reported and discussed in the literature, and for someone to have cited some sort of Jewish Agency For Israel document. And you have still not addressed my concerns about Ehrlich. Edwardx (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────* Could you please be more clear because we seem to be talking past each other. I don't understand what gives you the right to question such well respected scholarly sources? Your "reasonable to suppose" is wrong - this was not "published policy", but a non-public policy which came to light in recent years through scholarly archival research. It has since been published broadly in scholarly literature, as the sourcing in the article shows. I don't understand your issue regarding Ehrlich? For the avoidance of doubt, that is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, which M-G as a secondary source is superior to. Your skepticism appears to be pure WP:OR. Please could you rephrase your questions in terms of specific policy issues? Ie if you think M-G is not RS, then please say so. If you think we need more than one RS to support each statement, please show me policy which requires this. And please AGF - I honestly don't understand your issues. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Is your point simply a semantic one regarding what it means for something to be an "official policy"? Frankly i'm not sure i know how one defines an official policy vs an executive plan. I am just following sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The only source in the article that appears to support the viewpoint that the One Million Plan became an "official policy" is Meir-Glitzenstein, and not Ehrlich (which I agree is a tertiary source in any event). I can find several mentions of the One Million Plan being a proposal put forward by Ben-Gurion in 1944, but I can find no one apart from Meir-Glitzenstein who claims that it ever became Jewish Agency policy.
  • You state that this was "a non-public policy which came to light in recent years through scholarly archival research. It has since been published broadly in scholarly literature, as the sourcing in the article shows." If so, then you ought to be able to direct me to the relevant primary source, and the rest of the scholarly literature. Looking at your history, your content contributions appear to be almost exclusively on Israel or Palestine-realted topics, so you are far better placed than I to do this.
  • If Meir-Glitzenstein is the only source, then per WP:UNDUE, the viewpoint that the One Million Plan became Jewish Agency policy as opposed to being a plan promulgated solely by Ben-Gurion would appear to be a minority view, and even having a separate article about it (rather than say a section in Ben-Gurion's article) would be giving it unmerited prominence. Edwardx (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write your last response - this is clear. I have added some more detail to the article, which may be helpful. But I see your key question is whether this was just Ben-Gurion's plan, or whether it was an agreed policy of the wider executive. In light of all the sources on the topic (including the new ones I just added), I see no reason to doubt M-G's interpretation. However, to each of your points:
1) All the other sources discuss the plan in the same light as M-G. None refute or disagree with her work, and I am not aware of any sources that do. And other sources are clear that the plan was implemented[2] and also presented on behalf of the executive at an international commission[3]. The other scholars may not have spelt it out in exactly the same way, but it is implied across all these works. To possibly conclude that M-G was incorrect in her description, I think we would need to see some suggestions of inconsistency from other scholars vs her work on this, which I have not seen.
2+3) To be clear, it was non-public because at the time such massive immigration was illegal under British restrictions. I have added additional scholarly sources to the article as requested. The primary sources are of course all in Hebrew, and held in archives, although I can probably get you the Anglo-American commission proposal. HaCohen, Shenhav and Eyal all provide sources - HaCohen has the most primary sources.
I hope this is helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
After some more reading, I have found a source which uses almost exactly the form of words you are requesting. I have added it to the lead: Dalia Ofer, writing on illegal immigration during world war II, writes that immigration of one million Jews was "declared policy of the zionist agency executive".
Thank you for your help in pushing me to make the article more robust.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You state “All the other sources discuss the plan in the same light as M-G. “, yet the only other source that you have cited that calls it a policy, “declared policy”, is Dalia Ofer from 1991.
  • A few days ago, you described the One Million Plan as “a non-public policy which came to light in recent years through scholarly archival research “. How can Wikipedia reasonably describe it as “official policy” when any idea of it being “policy” was never disclosed outside the inner circle? I have found no source that mentions anything like “scholarly archival research”, and you are still failing to provide any information as to when this research happened, what archives were involved or what primary source(s). As far as I can see neither Meir-Glitzenstein (2004) nor Dalia Ofer (1991) provide such a citation.
  • On the other hand, Maurice M. Roumani in his 2009 book The Jews of Libya: Coexistence, Persecution, Resettlement discusses the One Million Plan at some length. Being more recent, and with a foreword by Sir Martin Gilbert, it seems reasonable to infer that this is a more reliable source than any that you have offered:
  • “In June 1944, Ben-Gurion unveiled the “One Million Plan” … At the time it was not clear why Ben-Gurion wanted to include Middle Eastern Jews in this plan.” (p108)
  • Maurice M. Roumani: The Jews of Libya: Coexistence, Persecution, Resettlement
  • The discussion continues until the end of page 111, and is worth reading.
  • Nowhere does Roumani state that it became policy. Indeed, if that had been the case, why was it never known as the One Million Policy? Would it not be more accurate to describe it as Ben-Gurion's proposal? Of course, the coming into existence of the State of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent “right of return” is a different matter.
  • Even in the additional sources that you are now providing, the One Million Plan is always “Ben-Gurion's plan”, never the “Jewish Agency's plan” or the “Zionist leadership's plan”.
  • Also, a 2001 article at Chareidi.org states, “Historian Dvora Hacohen's book, The One Million Plan, which deals with the far-reaching plans of former prime minister David Ben-Gurion to bring one million Jews to Israel after the war, exposes some of the circumstances surrounding this eagerness. Apparently, already in 1944, Ben-Gurion had planned to finance this grandiose plan with...” Chareidi.org
  • Again, only a plan, and only Ben-Gurion's plan - a proposal, and not a policy. Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems you have a hard time assuming good faith. I can explain more fully but Roumani was the ex-head of WOJAC, a political advocacy organisation, and Gilbert once wrote a questionable book on behalf of WOJAC. I am not saying they are not RS, but to suggest Roumani is more reliable than the numerous well respected scholars sourced in the article is absurd. (see for example: FT review of Gilbert, another here in footnote 26, and in p160-161 of this book (not viewable online), refers to half of one of Roumani's works as "polemical")
Secondly, do you accept that given the importance of Ben Gurion's position leading the Zionist Executive and Jewish Agency executive, some authors will use "Ben-Gurion" as shorthand for "Ben-Gurion's administration" (ie the Jewish / Zionist government)? Just like people talk about Obamacare as being Obama's plan for example, when in fact it is / was the policy of his administration.
Thirdly, do you accept that a "policy" simply means "a plan agreed by an organisation", and does not need to be a "public policy" to qualify as a policy? Cameron's cabinet has certain (particularly foreign) policies that are never made public, and don't forget that Ben Gurion's executive was not a democratically elected organisation until 1949 (i.e. it had no requirement to publicise its views, particularly those that were illegal under British restrictions...)
I recognise you are doing this because you, like me, are keen to ensure that we maintain the highest possible standards in fact checking etc, but I think you are getting mixed up by trying to be too literal. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Despite my questions around Roumani above, I have taken your advice and read the pages you suggested. Here is a quote:

"The "One Million Plan" brought about a fundamental and groundbreaking conceptual change - Jews from Middle East and North African countries were finally perceived as candidates for aliyah. This represented a departure from the Zionist social conception formulated in the 1920s and 1930s defining the archetype of the oleh (immigrant) as a young and dedicated pioneer.... In short, the change in policy stemmed from changes in the reality on the ground...The Commission of Inquiry did not support the immigration of Middle Eastern Jews and the Zionist leadership was aware that their demand to bring Middle Eastern Jewry to Palestine was weak. There were even some Zionist leaders who doubted that there would be a major immigration movement from the Middle East and North African countries. Yet despite all these drawbacks, the call to bring these Jews to Palestine remained an important building block in Jewish Agency policy."

So we now have two sources in the article which state directly that it became policy, and a third here which strongly infers the same thing. I don't see any remaining rationale for doubting the sources on this. In all your reading on this, have you found a single source which suggests the plan did NOT become policy? In the absence of such a contraditory view, or a scholarly review questioning the veracity of the RS provided, surely we must assume good faith with respect to Meir-Glitzenstein and Ofer.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to give a Third opinion on the outstanding issues, as the original request at the official page was removed after it hadn't been selected within six days, and no attempt was made to resubmit it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That was my first time at Third Opinion, and I was unaware that it was possible to resubmit. Nonetheless, I see no reason to believe a second attempt would have met with success. Any new reviewer might also want to consider the discussion at my talkpage, as that could/should have taken place here, User_talk:Edwardx#DYK_for_One_Million_Plan Edwardx (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. Let me know what else I can do! Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer still needed; please see above. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 25[edit]

Tim Rogers (journalist), Action Button Entertainment, Ziggurat (video game), Videoball

Moved to mainspace by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

  • 3 of the four articles qualify with a May 24 creation date and all 4 qualify for May 25 creation or expansion dates. All articles are over 4000 characters, which easily exceeds the 1500 character minimum.--22:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the review. I'll add those, but I'm waiting for Rogers to send some free use in-game assets anyway so we can hold for that czar  01:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean free pictures?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep czar  11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Czar, any news on this? We don't want to hold it forever (get me, acting like the High Empress of DYK) Belle (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bellemora, yep—I had contacted him at a busy time so it's been slow going. I sent a reminder early last weekend and I'm still waiting on an OTRS hangup on my alternative images so if I don't get a response in the next few days we can just move ahead without it (after I make TTT's fixes). Thanks for checking, High Empress of DYK. I am not worthy czar  12:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
So I heard back—he's just looking into some legal stuff before the OTRS goes through czar  01:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)









Articles created/expanded on May 28[edit]

Video gaming in Bangladesh

Created by Akib.H (talk). Self nominated at 19:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

  • Barely long enough, at 1585 characters; recent enough; hook short enough. Fulfills DYK criteria and will be passed; however, I have some issues with the prose and the utilization of sources. For example, re: the prose: The use of the words "a lot" in the second sentence, first paragraph isn't appropriate usage in an encyclopedia. You also don't tell us how earlier, although ref1 does. Ref1 also describes how gaming started in Bangladesh, with video game arcades in the 90s. There are other examples in this short article. I suggest that you have someone look at the prose and include more information from your sources. At any rate, pass. Symbol voting keep.svg Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Per DYK Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry, but I have to say "no" to this. The problem with the hook is that it assumes you know what a MMOG is and why it's significant or important. Many people around the world from all walks of life will read the main page and be confused by this. The link also is a easter egg link that doesn't go to an immediately obvious place when you click on it. I had a look for an alternative hook, but as has already been discussed, the article just doesn't have enough "meat" on it for me to be able to suggest an alternative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, I can suggest another hook. Like this "... that Dhaka Racing is the first 3D video game developed in Bangladesh?" Akib.H (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not commenting on the quality of the article, but I want to mention that I think it is VERY fascinating that a game was made that responds to voice commands and body movements. If I saw a hook with that in it, I would DEFINITELY click it.--¿3family6 contribs 02:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's why I chose that hook. If somehow the original hook is kept it will boost the page views and make it more interesting. Ritchie333, if we keep the MMOG in full like Massively multiplayer online game, the hook will be of 197 characters, slightly under 200, will it be ok? Akib.H (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg According to DYKcheck, the article currently has 2283 prose characters. Given the significant expansion, a new review needs to be undertaken, which should also cover the issues raised by Ritchie333 above. Note that the article is currently considered a stub on its talk page, and will need a reevaluation there, as DYKs are not supposed to be stubs. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Paige (wrestler)

Created by LikeTheWind (talk). Improved to Good Article status by FairyTailRocks (talk), Starship.paint (talk). Nominated by FairyTailRocks (talk) at 02:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough (promoted to GA 28 May, nominated 30 May) and long enough. Article images are free. Original hook and ALT2 are acceptable (but see issue 2 for ALT1), and all are short enough. Original hook checks out with online citation #9. ALT2 checks out with online citations #107 and #108 (although Paige's championship tenures overlapped for just one month in May 2014, the hook remains true). No disambig links found. All external links accessible except one (see issue 1). The text is written in an objective and neutral manner, and is fully cited. I have checked external links in citations 1-9 for copyvio or close paraphrasing, and found none (citations 10-108 were not checked). Issues: (1) Citation #78 is a deadlink. (2) ALT1 needs to be written out in full in the text, with appropriate citations; at the moment I cannot easily assemble the parts of the hook and appropriate citations from the text, and cannot find evidence for "immediately". That is not to say it is untrue; just help us check it out, please. (3) QPQ not yet done. Summary: if issues 1-3 1 and 3 can be resolved, this nom should be OK. Note: the images in the article are free, and one of those could be used with your chosen hook if you wish. --Storye book (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting minor corrections to hooks. Don't think AJ Lee is important enough, the other is phrasing. starship.paint "YES!" 03:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm also proposing that this DYK be left pending, as a frequent editor of wrestling articles there are a few issues with the article that need to be sorted out. Namely, her 2010 / 2011 exploits need to be expanded before this appears on the main page as a GA. starship.paint "YES!" 03:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Starship.paint. Issue 2 now resolved. I agree with your reasons for new hooks, and I have struck the original hook and ALT1 in favour of ALT2 and the adjusted versions ALT3 and ALT4.--Storye book (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review of ALT3 and ALT4: Both acceptable, short and hooky. ALT3 checks out with online citation #9. ALT4 checks out online with citation #72.--Storye book (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Note to admin: This nom is currently waiting for the article to be edited up to standard, as per 24 June request of Starship.paint. Issues 1 and 3 (deadlink and QPQ) still pending.--Storye book (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Deadlink is fixed. So is the Shimmer Women Athletes (2011) section. What's left is European independent circuit (2005–2011) - years 2010 and 2011. Missing info is as follows, bolded is more important; cancelled repeated opponents: Small and Red is now info not needed for inclusion in the article. Normal size is for inclusion, strikeout is already included. starship.paint "YES!" 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2010
2011
  • Review update: Two issues remaining for this nom. (1) QPQ still pending. (2) Article still needs to be brought up to standard as per comments above by Starship.paint. --Storye book (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It's been about two weeks, and the issues noted above, including QPQ, are still unsatisfied. The nominator hasn't edited for over a week; allowing until one week or 24 hours after the next edit, whichever comes first, to respond here. I hope it won't be necessary to close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @ BlueMoonset. I have messaged FairyTailRocks re the QPQ. Starship.paint has left a message with intention to edit the article within 24h. If no QPQ happens, I can then offer to donate one of mine, but we await Starship's help with the article-edits. --Storye book (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @ FairyTailRocks. Thank you, QPQ partly done. Don't forget that even though the nominated article that you have reviewed is a new GA, you still have to do a full review for DYK. I'll accept it if you complete the review or if another editor completes it for you. --Storye book (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Remaining issues: (1) QPQ has been started with a partial review, but that needs to be completed as far as an initial review goes, by FairyTailRocks or another editor. (1) This nom article still needs to be brought up to standard as per comments above by Starship.paint. --Storye book (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • After thinking through a bit more, I've realised that there is no longer so much missing information to be included in the article. The European independent circuit were a bunch of minor promotions which are much less notable than the American ones. There's no need for so much detailed coverage, as her opponents are mostly redlinks. From 2005-2008, when she hadn't won a singles title yet, we only need tournament matches or title matches. I've removed a #1 contender determination match. From 2009-2011, successful title defenses are surplus. Only title matches where a title change are needed. As such, I have edited the missing info above. I have settled five of the six missing items already. starship.paint "YES!" 13:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confident that the article will be settled 24 hours from now. starship.paint "YES!" 13:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Storye book, European independent circuit and Championships and accomplishments are updated. I'd say this article is finally GA and good to go. Is the QPQ in order? In addition, I think ALT3 can be improved. Source for "as a child" -> I couldn’t really get a grasp on wrestling at a young age ... It scared the crap out of me ... When I got a little older, like, 10 or 11 ... I would get in the ring now and again and mess around with one of my brothers, and he’d teach me some stuff. starship.paint "YES!" 04:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Starship.paint, thanks for the updates and new ALT. I'm afraid the QPQ is not in order: the review was superficial and missed most of the criteria that need to be checked. I've noted the deficiencies on the template—FairyTailRocks, you have more work to do on the review for it to pass muster. If you need any guidance, feel free to ask, or you can check the top of any DYK template edit window: a summary of the review criteria for article and hook is there. (More detailed explanations are available at WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry I can't donate a QPQ in this case (although as you know I sometimes do). I only donate QPQs if it will help clear the backlog or speed up a nom - especially where a nominator is having genuine difficulty. But in this case I don't think it would help. If I am making the wrong decision here, please let me know, and I'll donate a QPQ. This isn't about me being mean - some very capable editors would naturally object to being offered a free QPQ and I don't wish to offend. --Storye book (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you shouldn't donate. >_> Could the QPQ wait until the weekend, given that FairyTailRocks is schooling? In the meantime we could decide between ALT2, ALT4 and ALT5? starship.paint "YES!" 14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Starship.paint. I have struck ALT3 in favour of ALT5, which checks out with the source linked above. ALT2 and ALT4 are already approved. I am happy to put them all forward for the admin to choose, unless you would like to choose one yourself? I have run out of computer time now, so I'm leaving a note here to myself to check that ALT5 is written out in full in the article with its inline citation alongside. --Storye book (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT5 is a combination of two sentences in two sections, one from Early life and one later in Divas Champion. I have no preference for any ALTs. I also think ALT2 could be improved to be made more subtle. starship.paint "YES!" 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Starship.paint. Please would you kindly double-check the following citation numbers for me? The sources look almost right to me, but I don't know enough about the competition system to be sure. Thank you. When you have checked it, I can pass this nom. ALT4 checks out online with citations #84 and #85 (the debut bit is implied, not spelled out?). ALT5 checks out with online citation #9. ALT6 checks out online with citations #107 and #108 (although Paige's championship tenures overlapped for just one month in May 2014, the hook remains true). --Storye book (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding ALT4, I actually added a source for "debut" back in April. Someone removed it, so I added it back now. So the new reference #84 supports ALT4. Whereas, ALT5 is supported by #8, #9 and the new #87. I just remembered ALT6 is not mentioned explicitly in the article... WP:PW members thought it wasn't important enough to be explicitly written in the article, so perhaps we could take ALT6 out of the running. starship.paint "YES!" 08:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)






Articles created/expanded on June 2[edit]

2013 Specialized–lululemon season

2013 UCI Road World Championships, women's TTT, Ellen van Dijk.JPG

5x expanded by Sander.v.Ginkel (talk). Self nominated at 12:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment: The article was not created in the last seven days, but the article was completed on 12 June (5 days ago). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Expansion 3-12 June, nominated 17 June. Thank you for your explanation, which I accept (I have edited the nom to say "expanded", not "created"). Therefore it is new enough and long enough. No QPQ required from this nominator. No problem with disambig links or with access to external links. Hook image is free and it appears in the article. All article images are free except the fair-use logo which is properly licensed. The text is written in an objective manner and a neutral style (but see copyediting issue below). It is fully cited. External links from citations 1-10 were checked with dup detector tool for sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing; none found (citations 11-41 not checked). Copyediting issue: Is "structute" a typo? I cannot guess what you mean there. And "performed prolific"? "escaped with 35km"? "were very prolific"? "lost the sprint from her"? "finished in third"? "didn not go as fasted"? There are other examples like this in the text which are making the meaning unclear, so this text needs to be copyedited before it can be promoted for DYK. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. When the copyediting issue is resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review and sorry for the copyediting issues. I corrected them. If you have more issues, I'm happy to improve the article. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Sander.v.Ginkel, for kindly resolving the above copyediting issues - I have struck them out. More issues: (1) There are still a few more minor ones, e.g. "finishid", "finsished", "secnd", full stop missing after "joy after winning", "undeafeted", "that is dream that comes true" - repeated?. I hope you will find time to correct these. (2) I have just realised that I didn't check out the hook fully - my apologies. The hook is acceptable and short enough, and it is sourced to online citation #40. However citation #40 is now out of date, and I cannot find Ellen van Dijk's name there. Please correct the citation? Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry, but I had to pull this one from prep as I think it needs more copyediting, there are sentences in the lede alone that verge on the incomprehensible, for example "the eleventh year of the team, considering the structure of the team dates back to the T-Mobile team in 2003", what does that mean? "Two American cyclists were attracted", huh? "The year was marked with a crash of Ina-Yoko Teutenberg in March. She couldn’t ride for the whole season", then how come she crashed? "Ellen van Dijk, the runner op of the team" - the "runner op" [sic] to what? "The team was, like last year, undefeatable", did you mean "undefeated"?
These are only problems I found in the lede, I haven't looked at the rest of the article yet. I don't expect foreign-language users to get everything right by any means, but the basic meaning must be clear and I don't think it is in the examples above. Get some help to rewrite from other users if you need it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Gatoclass, thank you for your comments. Sorry on the other hand for my very late response. I didn't see it.. I started working on the leading section and improved it with your comments. I'll also go through the whole article to scan it further on bad English. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The mentioned issues are resolved. The lead and the whole article are improved. MFriedman (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I would like Gatoclass to confirm that his concerns have been fully addressed, since this has already been pulled from prep once, and a second pull for the same reason would be most unfortunate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)




Deckmyn vs Vandersteen

Created by L.tak (talk). Self nominated at 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

  • hook needs attention - I think it needs the word "racist", but I havent checked the source. I did edit it boldly to make it read better Victuallers (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the verdict states "een discriminerende boodschap", which is not per definition racist (e.g. it could also be discrimination against religion....); but your corrections seem to match the wording of the Dutch even better... L.tak (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that "discriminating messages" are not illegal. Racial and sexual discrimination may be. I guess the hook could rely on the usual shorthand that treats "discrimination" per se as something bad .... only unfair discrimination is usually illegal. Victuallers (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Created 2 June, nominated 4 June, so new enough, also long enough. No requirement for QPQ from this self-nom; fewer than 5 DYKs credited. No problems with disambig links, or with problems of access to external links (but see issue 1). The text is objectively written and neutral in style. The hook is referenced in the header to citation #1 (but see issue 2). I am unable to check the Dutch-language sources for copyvio, and I'm taking it AGF that there is no copyvio - especially as there are three quotations in the article, which indicates a responsible attitude regarding copyright. Issues: (1) External link for citation #3 is flagged as suspicious by DYK tool, but not by my Avast firewall. It may be OK, but is there an alternative source available? (2) Re hook. It is clear from the above discussion that this nom is not going to be promoted unless either an agreement can be reached on the word "discriminating" or another hook can be suggested. (3) The text is not fully cited; the minimum requirement is a citation at the end of each paragraph, especially a legal subject such as this one, which is likely to be fully documented in the media. Summary: when issues 1-3 are resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the word we're looking for is discriminatory, but there's a whole lot that needs sorting out in this article. I can hardly tell what the case is even about. Who did what??? EEng (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I found several English-language sources that may be helpful in understanding the topic and editing the article: [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I realize it is a complicated matter. We have a court case, and then questions asked to the CJEU, and then an opinon of the Advocate General how the court might answer those questions. Not yet in, but to be expected: a ruling from the CJEU, followed by a ruling from the Belgian court (in conformation with the CJEU ruling). I think that is clear in the article, but not in the lede, and I have therefore reordered it... That also means that the main encyclopedic value (what the court will rule on the parody exception in the copyright directive) will be a bit down... I furthermore linked preliminary reference, and derivative work which provide helpful reference regarding the procedure... I do see problems with the hook however...Maybe we should try a somewhat lighter alternative? L.tak (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I like judges asking the meaning of parody. EEng (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And in a weird way it is the best 12 (15) word summary of the article I would be able to come up with; so let's have that as a preference... I am btw still a bit in doubt about one of the refs, which one of the tools flags as suspicious... Is there a way to find out why the bot feels that way; so we can evaluate wether that applies in this specific case? L.tak (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)










Articles created/expanded on June 3[edit]

Welcome Rotonda

The Welcome Rotonda welcomes visitors to Quezon City, and is located at its border with Manila

  • Reviewed: Doing...

Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self nominated at 10:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, and neutral. Hook is verified with inline reference. No close paraphrasing detected. Image is public domain. QPQ still not done. -Zanhe (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This user isn't required to do a QPQ yet (I count only one previous DYK credit). However, I have some concerns about support for some of the factual information in the article, including the hook:
  • Sources and the article seem to use the word "Rotonda" to mean both the roundabout and the monument built in the middle of the roundabout. For the article and hook, I suggest that a clear distinction need be made. That is, when discussing what the businessman climbed, say that it was the monument in the Welcome Rotonda (it doesn't make much sense to say that he climbed the roundabout).
  • The sources seem to differ as to why he climbed the monument. According to source 3, he wanted "to get the government to ban Chinese-Filipinos from running for public office." Source 4 indicates that he hoped to get voters to reject "candidates with Chinese blood". Are there other sources that could resolve this? (Note that offline sources and non-English sources are acceptable -- not every source needs to be online and in English language.) If this cannot be resolved, possibly the article and hook could be revised to say something like "as a protest against Chinese Filipino candidates running in that year's election."
  • The first sentence in the last paragraph of article lacks credibility. The factual question of whether the site of the rotonda is high terrain should not be presented as a matter of hearsay or speculation (as in "believed to be built in one of the highest portions") -- either it is on high terrain (according to measured elevations) or it isn't. Is there another source that could be used on this point? The cited source appears to indicate (in "the rotonda, which is toted as the city’s highest point") that the monument is the highest point in Quezon City -- can that be verified from another source? Also, the statement that "which explains why many of the streets on the Quezon City side of the roundabout were named after Philippine mountains" looks like speculation or even original research, both in the source and the Wikipedia article. Original research doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Also, it's not at all obvious that this information belongs in the encyclopedia article, regardless of its source -- street names in the area aren't part of the story of the Rotonda.
  • Speaking of facts, is information available on the height and other dimensions of the monument? Is there a free image of it? In the pictures I've seen (in sources), it looks much more imposing than the text descriptions suggest.
Also, note that the image isn't likely to be used, because it is difficult to see the roundabout and the monument at small scale. I'd like to see the hook give a little more of the kind of context that an image can provide. For example:
Hi, and greetings from Portland and from Open Source Bridge 2014! Please allow me to address some of your points below:
  • I can make that distinction, and since that change has already been made in the new hook, I'll gladly support it. :)
  • I don't see a difference here. The way I interepreted the two sources, Ducat demanded that the government not recognize the candidacy of Chinese Filipino candidates in that year's election, which implies candidates with Chinese blood. The hook reflects that as it is in its original form.
  • The reference in question is arguably one of the few stories available in print about not only the Welcome Rotonda itself, but the area immediately surrounding it. A reliable source printing an interview about it does not mean it's original research: note that the source is an article in a reputable Philippine newspaper. As for more technical data, I'm not sure there would be any, but it would probably be not available online, and I would have to dig through sources when I return in the Philippines this September to do so should that be the case.
I hope I've addressed your concerns so far, and I look forward to seeing this come to fruition. Thanks. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Sky Harbor. Regarding your first bullet, I'm glad my suggested hook wording works for you -- but note that the distinction does need to be in the article, not just in the proposed hook.
In reply to your second bullet, I fully agree that both sources indicate his opposition to Chinese Filipinos running for elective office. The sources differ in their identification of who the protest was aimed at convincing. Source 3 says he was trying to get the government to ban Chinese Filipinos from being candidates, while source 4 says he wanted people to vote against Chinese Filipino candidates. The original hook is consistent with source 3, but it is contradicted by source 4.
Regarding your third bullet, while a newspaper article republished on a blog has diminished credibility as a source, when compared to the original newspaper, that was not my main concern with that source. Rather, my concern was that the person interviewed (who was the source for almost all of the facts in the article) is a storekeeper whose information seems to be largely based on his recollections of stories told by his grandfather and father. Neither the grandfather nor the son or grandson appears to be a reliable source. For purposes of DYK, that should not prevent the use of this article -- because this source is not the basis for the hook, and several statements footnoted to this source contain information that is (or at least once was) "general knowledge" that would not require any special expertise. Regarding specific items sourced to that interview:
  • I highlighted the statement that the hilly terrain around the rotonda "explains why many of the streets on the Quezon City side of the roundabout were named after Philippine mountains" because it appears to be based only on speculation by one of these men. Since the statement isn't about the rotonda, it could be removed from the article without adverse effects.
  • The statement that the rotonda is "believed to be built in one of the highest portions" of Quezon City is inappropriate, regardless of its source. The relative elevation of the rotonda site is a piece of factual information that should be determinable. An encyclopedia should not report this kind of fact as if it were local tradition or hearsay; if the relative elevation can't be determined from a published source such as a gazetteer or a map, it doesn't belong in the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the statement in question has been removed. With respect to the remaining two items, I'm currently working on it, and I think can add some continued improvements to the text to make it more representative of the article's 'facts on the ground'. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
All remaining changes that Orlady suggested should be made have been made, and I hope these address the concerns raised on this page. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg My concerns with the article are addressed. However, I've made a lot of edits to the article, so I'm no longer qualified to approve it for DYK. We need another reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)








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)


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)








Articles created/expanded on June 12[edit]

Salamat, Kaibigan

  • Reviewed: Doing...

Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self nominated at 22:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article currently has only 1164 characters of readable prose.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm currently expanding the article: I just haven't been saving it yet as I'm currently participating in a conference. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Sky Harbor. I hope your conference went well. As of today, the article still stands at 1164 char. Any chance of a bit of saved text and a QPQ yet? --Storye book (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, Storye book, and yes, it did go well. I started expanding the article's public reaction section, and I'm currently going through more material. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Sky Harbor. The readable prose character count is now 1721, but I had better not review it until you have finished your current edit. Please ping me when the article is ready for review. Meanwhile the hook is OK and checks out online with (currently) citation #5 (currently Netizens-Rapper).--Storye book (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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 (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)










Articles created/expanded on June 13[edit]

Eduardo Garcia (chef)

  • ... that "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia says losing an arm to electrocution has helped his career?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Coppery-tailed coucal
  • Comment: I realize this submissionis a couple days late, and if the reviewer chose to reject it on those grounds I will accept it. However, I would like to plead the case: unlike many articles, Garcia presents a genuinely interesting hook. When I accepted the AfC draft, I knew I wante dto nominate it and could have immediately sent it here despite some obvious flaws in the article. I would have then been given an indefinite amount of time to fix it and no one would have questioned why it took a week to get to. Instead, I decided to wait until after I fixed the problems to nominate. Unfortunately I got busy in real life, and missed 7 day deadline. I hope for the sake of the new user who wrote the article, my slowness can be overlooked.

Moved to mainspace by Assistbragman (talk), ThaddeusB (talk). Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk) at 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC).


  • Comment: Though it's loosely used to mean any electrical shock, electrocution should really be reserved for shocks which result in death. I've altered the article to reflect this. How about: — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talkcontribs)
ALT1: ... that "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia says that losing an arm to an electric shock has helped his career?
ALT1 looks great, thanks for pointing that out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that, while in the hospital for the shock, turned out he had cancer and had to undergo chemotherapy. Now, that's quirky. There must be a hook in that. Stand by... EEng (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to choose with this guy. How about:
ALT2: ... that with the prosthetic arm he had fitted after an electrical accident, "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia has "superpowers  – I can grab things out of an oven and not get burnt"?
But there are potential problems. (1) The Mail is often questioned as a RS. (2) The Mail piece refers to his bionic "hand" but it's apparently at least the lower arm. I hope these things can be cleared out of the way because the hooks are great, if I may say so myself -- everyone will click just to see the arm/hand. EEng (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. There's a punctuation change in the ALT2's quote, but that's well within contextual discretion.
I would suggest
ALT2a: ... that with the prosthetic arm he had fitted after an electrical accident, "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia has "superpowers"?
Under the principle that "less is more" - people will wonder what "superpowers" he has and click. As to The Mail, I do not believe they actually did any original reporting (as is often the case), but rather compiled interesting tidbits from other reporting. In this case, the quote comes from Good Morning America, so I've swapped out the sourcing. (I've also added some new material from other video sources.) Most of the sources do say "hand" or use "arm" and "hand" interchangeably (including The Mail source), although obviously it is a hand+arm combo. My assumption would be that since the hand is so crucial to being a chef, sources put emphasis on it. I would think that is an obvious enough adjustment to the sourcing (similar to "electric shock" as opposed to "electrocution") to fall within normal editorial judgement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right in general re less is more, though in this particular case I think that the desire to learn more about the specific image of reaching into the over would probably restore the lost clicks. I don't have time today to help with this specifically, but one of the sources talked about how he was unhappy with one prosthesis (hand?) and so switched to another (hook?). As you may know I've taken on the role of fact-check bogeyman at DYK recently, so let's make sure whatever we say in the hook is ironclad (so to speak) -- we could say "prosthesis" as a copout but that very much blunts the, um, hook, um... oh... bad mix of wording there, in several ways. Ouch. EEng (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
ALT2 or ALT2a is fine by me. I added the "unhappy" content today. In the Sept-Dec interviews he was using the five-finger hand prosthesis. In the January interview he did the interview with the hand and switched to the hook for the cooking. In the Katie interview - the most recent - he said something like "I used a five-finger hand for a few months but it wasn't water proof and I kept nicking it... the bionic hook attachment works better for cooking." So, he uses the five-finger hand in everyday life and the hook hand to cook now. I'm not sure any of this affects ALT2/2a though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


  • We have a pic now. Not sure if it is desirable to show it with the hook or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review of ALT2/ALT2a (and decision on which to use) needed, since EEng can't promote his own hook. Also, pic needs checked. --14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg (Sigh) - yet another nom with lots of chat about hooks only, and no full review yet. So here goes. Nomination date accepted (moved to mainspace 13 June, nom 23 June, explanation accepted AGF). It is long enough. QPQ done. The text is objective and neutral, and fully-referenced. In response to above comments, I have struck the original hook and ALT2 because they have been superseded, and I struck ALT1 because the citation does not quite fit. That leaves ALT2a which is hooky enough, short enough, and checks out online with citation #7. External links for citations #1 to #7 were checked for copyvio; one found (see issue 3 below); citations #8 to #15 and external links section not checked. Issues: (1) Typos - "he at a Japanese cafe called Saitos", "simple explatory", "Garcia was fit", ""being shopped", "under served communities" (do you mean deprived?) (2) I have deleted File:Eduardo Garcia post-injury in the kitchen.jpg from this template because I see no evidence that it is free (if I am wrong, it can of course be re-instated). It is undated, but was clearly taken since 2011 when Garcia lost his arm. There is no letter yet provided to say that the author has given permission for free use. The uploader simply says that the image was sent to him. Therefore the image is at risk of an imminent SD tag, and cannot to be used in the article if this nomination is to continue. (3) Re spot checks for possible copyvio or close paraphrasing, one duplicatated passage found: "love for the outdoors to promote a healthy active" (citation #1). When issues 1-3 have been resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have copyedited the article. "Being shopped" is probably an American-ism, but is correct (and since the subject is an American, also appropriate). See, for example, [8]. I fixed the one close phrase. The picture was uploaded by a representative of Garcia at my request, and I made sure they understood the copyright implications. I can OTRS the email if necessary. I don't particularly care about this nomination (I think it may be stronger w/o a pic), but do wish to retain it in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @ ThaddeusB. Thank you for your edits - I have struck issues 1 and 3. I agree that "shopped" must be American slang, so I have struck the request to change it. The problem with slang is that it can offend or confuse English speakers in other countries. That is why we have Standard English. In the UK "shopped" is used in a dishonourable or casual sense, as in "he shopped his own brother to the police" (meaning betrayal) or "he shopped around", meaning that he searched casually for a good sale or a cheap buy. (There was an archaic usage meaning "went to buy in stores" but that is rarely used now). So to the UK reader it would be more pleasant if the article said "sold", "franchised", "rented" etc. instead of "shopped". Your choice, and it will not affect DYK. Regarding the image: So long as the image remains in the article, I cannot pass this nom until the image has a valid licence - sorry - even if I did, I believe that admin would check the image and say the same thing. As I understand it, you need to ask the copyright-owner, Fifteen Minutes PR, to write to WP with permission to use the image. --Storye book (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Shopped around" would mean "offered for sale to various parties". I wouldn't call it slang, just a different usage of the word. I'm open to different wording, just unsure how to do it - perhaps I need to break this into two sentences as I don't know any other succient wording. (Sold, rented, or franchised would not capture the proper sense of what happened.) How does "As of 2013, Garcia was actively trying to find a network interested in airing the show." As far as the picture, I will wait on OTRS permissioning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: I have now messaged the uploader Assistbragman with details of how to resolve the problem about the image. --Storye book (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, ThaddeusB. I agree we do need a re-write so that we can all understand. I am happy with your new suggested version. --Storye book (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)









Counter-Reformation in Poland

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

  • I've briefly scanned the article; I've added ALT1, though there may be better alternatives. Mindmatrix 18:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that the successful Counter-Reformation in Poland ended with the Repnin Sejm of 1768, which abolished legal discrimination against religious dissidents?

@Mindmatrix: Thanks! I think ALT1 is more interesting, but I am a bit worried it could be misleading - suggesting that the counter-reformation while initially successful failed after he Repnin Sejm, whereas at that point it has alredy won, and so relaxing the law didn't change that. Any thoughts on how we could reword the hook to reflect that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: I struck through the original hook, since "success" of a social movement is basically a matter of opinion requiring attribution (who says it was a success?) and/or context (e.g., indication of what it succeeded). --Orlady (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg New enough (created 13 June, nom 13 June), and long enough. QPQ done. Online citation #1 appears to support ALT1, but I see Piotrus' point. What about something like "blah was the culminating event of the successful blah"? Or "blah, the final event during blah, abolished blah"? Text is objective and neutral; and is fully referenced. Spot checks for copyvio and close paraphrasing found no matches. Another excellent and careful article from this nominator. If ALT1 could be re-phrased as per Piotrus' comment above, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Is something like that what you were after, Piotrus? (just trying to unjam the nomination, so I haven't read the article. What a lazy cow!) Belle (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Asia Minor (instrumental)

  • Comment: The lede was written last year, which is why the references are there even though they are not required in a lede.

5x expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size, refs are fine. However I'd like to propose a more clear ALT1, below. It will need a separate review, unfortunately. Through I see now that instrumental song is a red link... and the category Category:Pop instrumentals is missing a main article. I am not sure if the correct term for this is instrumental, song, both or something else - and I'd recommend that the article's lead properly defines that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I deliberately omitted the fact that it was a song from the hook because it was quirky and would thus attract readers (why would the BBC ban half a continent, i.e. Asia Minor, and what for). The article instrumental song doesn't exist because it is at Instrumental. However, a hook you can pass - yours is grammatically incorrect:
  • I added quotation marks around the title, which must be there unless you want to make an April Fools' Day hook. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 03:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Which I do not, so thank you.--Launchballer 06:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Per DYK Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher. — Maile (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Is C-class pushing it?--Launchballer 07:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Verifying the stub was removed. — Maile (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to say I've verified the hook to its source and to my surprise the BBC really was that stodgy on this subject. Striking original hook because it's clear ALT2 is meant. EEng (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Update review: I confirm that date and length are OK. I have struck ALT1 because it is superseded by ALT2. ALT2 is acceptable and short enough, and checks out with online citations #2 and #7 (I agree, EEng - #7 is a fascinating read). The article is objective, neutral and fully referenced. All online citations checked for possible sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing. None found. Issue: QPQ needed, please, Launchballer. When the QPQ is done, this nom should be OK. (Or would you like me to donate a QPQ to speed up this nom?) --Storye book (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not in this case, because I am fully obliged to; I've done this one.--Launchballer 11:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this from prep as the source for the hook looks questionable and the text in the source looks like a possible copyvio. Gatoclass (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with it. What's your problem with it?--Launchballer 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Gatoclass. Thank you for your explanation, but I believe there is a misunderstanding. Firstly: The Independent, the Guardian and the Observer are the only remaining UK serious and authoritative newspapers in existence, since Murdoch bought up and trashed up most of the rest. If the Independent is not an authoritative source, then no newspaper is. Secondly: The British Government has a Thirty-year rule in which its archives are open to public view and publishing after 30 years (excepting only those pertaining to national security and certain aspects of the Queen's private life). The BBC is under the control and auspices of the same government, and I take it that the 30 year rule pertains there also, since BBC records are public records. The 1960s are well outside the 30 year rule. If I understand correctly, in the UK we can photocopy and quote (with due credit) up to 5% of copyrighted materials anyway, and the quotations in the source article could not possibly exceed 5% of the masses of material in the BBC archives. Therefore in reply to your above comment, the source is not at all questionable - in fact it is highly authoritative, and the source text cannot be a copyvio. --Storye book (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Pulled by mistake. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Excuse me, Storye book, but you don't get to decide for me whether or not my concerns about a nomination have been met. Your analysis above is not relevant because the problematic source is this one which is used as the source for the statement that this particular record was banned by the BBC. I was unable to find any sign of an editorial board for the website, it appears to be a private blog, and the entry in it about Wisner appears to be lifted from The Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders by Wayne Jancik, published in 1998. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Gatoclass, I now see that citation #2 is no good, and I would be happy to see it deleted from the article. I had understood that you were complaining about #7 which backs up the banning-of-parodies-of-classical-music bit. I accept that #7 doesn't back up the bit about the specific banning of "Asia Minor" (which was the intended function of #2). It would have helped us, though, if you had specified source #2 in your previous comment. So now we need either another source to support the first half of ALT2 (unlikely), or we need another hook. Peace and love. --Storye book (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You are correct Storye book, I should have specified the source I was referring to, my apologies. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe I stated that I wrote the lede last year and thus expansion is based on that. Had you read the main body of the text you would have found that the hook is sourced by reference #8. All uses of reference #2 have been replaced with reference #8, though I see no harm in replacing the text of reference #2 with "Jancik, Wayne (1998). The Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders. New York: Billboard Books. ISBN 0-8230-7622-9" (as copied from List of one-hit wonders in the United States#References).--Launchballer 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Launchballer. I checked the new link for citation #2 (which you call #8). I am happy with it. The author is recommended by Marc Shapiro here, and I'm happy with that. Citation #7 shows that the hook is very likely to be true anyway, so I have no reason to disbelieve the new citation #2 about the BBC ban. @ Gatoclass, please could we have your opinion on this? Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I'm not crazy about the new source either, but I guess there is enough confirmation in the sources overall for this nom to scrape by. Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg I've pulled it again. Really, this is pure WP:OR, taking one line from a website (whose author is praised, on his own website, by another author, which is apparently sufficient to become a reliable source as well) and combing this with a general article which doesn't mention this example. A doubtful source stating "maybe they felt the classics shouldn't be messed with" should not become "was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music" on DYK. An educated guess is still a guess. Fram (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • After reading the article in the Independent regarding music that the BBC banned in 1961, I think the hook probably is true, but (unfortunately) it is not explicitly stated by any source. Let's try an alternative hook:
  • ALT3 ... that the song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC in 1961, but still reached No. 35 on the UK Singles Chart? --Orlady (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the objection to the previous hook was that there isn't a solid source for the statement that the song was "banned by the BBC", in which case the proposed alt has the same problem. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Way Back Attack may give an educated guess as to why it was banned, but it does say that it was banned. A different article, The Independent, states that 1961 instrumentals were banned for 'mutilation of the classics' and this was a 1961 record, that was an instrumental, that was a remake of a classic. I don't see what the problem is, but tomorrow morning I'm going into Sutton library and having a good rummage round.--Launchballer 16:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, I found one, but it wasn't easy. In a borough's biggest 'depot' library of numerous floors, only three books mention it, of which two are passing mentions, and precisely no books whatsoever cover just instrumentals! Instrumentals are just as song as vocal tracks! Rant over - better?--Launchballer 21:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that the song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music?
  • ALT3: ... that the song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC in 1961, but still reached No. 35 on the UK Singles Chart?
  • Symbol question.svg Thank you, Launchballer. All the hooks featuring Asia Minor being banned by the BBC now have that bit checked out with offline citation #8, kindly provided (with commendable determination!) by Launchballer. Due to the extended discussion I have copied and pasted the remaining ALTs together above, for convenient comparison, and struck the duplicates to prevent confusion. So ALT2 checks out with just offline citation #8. To accept ALT3 we have to assume that offline citation #8 says that the ban was in 1961 (can you confirm that, Launchballer?) The no.35 bit of ALT3 checks out online with citation #6. So I could either pass this with ALT2 only, or if "1961" is confirmed I could pass it with both ALT2 and ALT3. --Storye book (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I can confirm that offline citation #8 said that the ban was in 1961, however I find ALT3 a bit too dry and factual.--Launchballer 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)



Felisa Vanoff

Created by Zigzig20s (talk). Self nominated at 16:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Entry is new enough, long enough, within policy, and hook is confirmed in all cited sources. Definitely an interesting person. There are only four cited sources, but they're all obituaries, so they're pretty dense with information. There must be more possible sources to cite, but that's surely more an issue with the entry than the DYK nomination.Penny Richards (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Penny Richards
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep due to paraphrase issues identified by Yoninah at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I spent time with this article, adding sources and removing the close paraphrasing. However, it's still basically a chronological account of her life, following the line-by-line presentation of all of the sources. I'm not sure if we can do anything about this. I'd appreciate another reviewer's opinion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The page layout was mangled by your edit and you also removed a secondary source. Please see my comment on the talkpage. I hope this either gets reverted or fixed. I have no idea why you would want to do this rationally. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? The page looks exactly as it did before I started. I added more national references and removed one very local, neighborhood paper (The Beverly Hills Courier), whose material was simply repeated in all the other sources. The nomination has been sitting here for over a week; why didn't you improve it yourself? Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the layout, even though I tried to explain it on the talkpage first. Do you see a difference? Is it not looking better? Now, I disagree with removing a reference. Surely, one more reference is better than not. I would like to add it back. Why not? Again, see talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I restored the ref and the layout is fixed. Still calling for another DYK reviewer to decide about the line-by-line paraphrasing of the sources in regard to this article's eligibility for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I just put the url of the article and the url of the first citation link into the dup detector, and loads of long close paraphrases showed up either side of the duplicated passages. And that was just the first citation source. So this is a no. Sorry. --Storye book (talk)
  • See your talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on June 14[edit]

Mary Francis Hill Coley

Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 14:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Date, length, hook all OK. The hook is confirmed by two references, one online, the other offline and AGF. Article well referenced. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Since the original hook was pulled from the queue, I've undone the promotion. Here is an alt hook:

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Time to re-review, please? Not sure why the original hook was pulled. No clue what issues to focus on. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This hook is fully sourced:
*ALT2: ... that African American midwife Mary Francis Hill Coley was chosen as the star of All My Babies, a 1952 instructional film for training midwives? Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I don't like that hook because I don't find the words "chosen to star" to be an apt description of the situation, in part because it suggests (inaccurately) that she was essentially an actress playing a scripted role (although that impression is supported by the misleading wording in the article, which says "Coley shot four months' worth of footage in Albany"). Moreover, the fact that she was "chosen" to appear in the film is not nearly as important (nor interesting) as the fact that she was featured in the actual film. I also am concerned that the article is still very close, in its overall structure and wording, to the "Georgia Women of Achievement" biography. It shouldn't be awfully difficult to resolve these issues. For starters, here is an alternative hook that isn't currently in the article, but is supported by sources cited in the article:


The following has been checked in this review by Maile

  • QPQ done by 97198
  • Article created by 97198 on June 14, 2014 and has 2,707 characters of readable prose
  • Article is NPOV, stable, no edit wars, no dispute tags, no outstanding talk page issues
  • Every paragraph sourced online
  • No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
  • Duplication Detector check of online sourcing found no copyvio
  • Disambig links tool found no issues
  • External links tool found no issues
  • Original hook struck due to concerns raised on WT:DYK on June 17
  • ALT2 is sourced, but I have struck it due to Orlady's concerns above
  • ALT 1 is stated in the article and sourced
  • Alt 3 is stated in the article and sourced
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Good go to with ALT1 or ALT3, but ALT3 is more hooky. — Maile (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm, where in the article did you find a statement that the film was used in training midwives around the world? The article says it was used "over the last 58 years" (without clearly indicating that the statement was made in 2011), but it doesn't say anything about the geographic scope of its use. (I found that fact in a source.) And did you not perceive close paraphrasing in passages like the following?
Source: Mary married carpenter Ashley Coley and the family moved to Albany in 1930. It was after this move that she became interested in midwifery and was trained by Alabama midwife Onnie Lee Logan in the apprentice tradition. For over 30 years Mary delivered more than 3,000 babies in Dougherty, Lee, Mitchell and Worth counties. - See more at: http://www.georgiawomen.org/2012/05/coley-mary-francis-hill-2/#sthash.UJ41tAud.dpuf
Article: She married Ashley Coley, a carpenter, in 1930 and moved with him to Albany, Georgia. In Albany she developed an interest in midwifery and began training under the tutelage of midwife Onnie Lee Logan. After completing her apprenticeship with Logan, Coley practiced as a midwife for more than three decades, working across the state of Georgia in the counties of Dougherty, Lee, Mitchell and Worth.
Granted, the article is not a verbatim copy of the source, but it seems to me that the overall structure and choice of words in the article are "too close" to this source. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, perhaps this needs a second look. Surprise to me that you wrote ALT3 and are now questioning the wording (or...at least questioning that I said it is in the article). Just goes to show that sometimes every nomination benefits by a second (or so) look. — Maile (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I prefaced ALT3 with a statement that it "isn't currently in the article". That meant that it was a possible hook, but that someone would need to revise the article to make it acceptable. My comment also referred to the close paraphrasing issue (I also am concerned that the article is still very close, in its overall structure and wording, to the "Georgia Women of Achievement" biography). --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Until the close paraphrasing issue is dealt with, this should not be left in an approved state. Can we please hear from nominator 97198 on when this can be addressed? (Note: as 97198 is out of town until July 12, it will be a few days until that happens.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I did some cleanup and expansion of the article. I added content and sourcing to support the ALT3 hook. However, I haven't yet tackled the passages where I perceived close paraphrasing. --Orlady (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Principality of Nitra

Modern sculpture of Pribina in Nitra

Improved to Good Article status by Borsoka (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 14:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Hook is a bit vague. Belle (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have updated the hook since Belle's comment. If the hook is still unclear, please let me know. I will look for alternative hooks as well.--¿3family6 contribs 01:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I will note that most of the political history is uncertain and confusing. Most of the article presents various theories about the status of the Principality within Hungary and Greater Moravia.--¿3family6 contribs 01:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg I hate to step on your toes, Bellemora, but I could do with a QPQ and the article hasn't been reviewed yet. Obviously long enough, new enough, QPQ unnecessary as not a self-nom, no copyvios found. I agree that the hook is vague; I checked the history of this nom and reincluding the phrase "territorial" in an ALT, as the context of the article implies, I will approve it.--Launchballer 09:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I hate it when people step on my toes, especially if we aren't dancing. No, you're fine Launchballer, I don't own any reviews. Belle (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go.--Launchballer 11:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from prep because it seems clear that scholars disagree about who Pribina was etc., so I think a more accurate hook needs to be found. Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT 2 ... that after the ruler Pribina (pictured) was expelled from the region, the Principality of Nitra became one of the most important centers of administration within Great Moravia?

  • Comment: This alt I changed "its ruler" to "the ruler". Though there is debate about who Pribina was, all the sources indicate he was a ruler of some kind.--¿3family6 contribs 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT 3 ... that the Hungarians invaded Greater Moravia, including the Principality of Nitra, around the year 900?

  • Comment: This one does not have a picture.--¿3family6 contribs 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT 4 ... that most of the history of the Principality of Nitra remains uncertain?

ALT 5 ... that most of the history of the Principality of Nitra (Pribina of Nitra pictured) remains uncertain?

  • Comment: Alts 4 and 5 are the same, but alt 5 uses the picture of Pribina's statue.--¿3family6 contribs 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on June 15[edit]

Foreign policy of Narendra Modi

Created by Lihaas (talk). Self 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)

Fiacre (carriage)

  • ... that in 1860 the Compagnie Impériale des Voitures in Paris operated 3,830 fiacres, owned 8,000 horses, and carried over 10 million passengers?

Created by Smerus (talk). Self nominated at 10:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Promising article on good sources, but presently a bit too short. Please move the bolded redirect Fiaker to the lead. You might find something on them in Brugge. In the hook, I would mention the millions first, for those who won't read to the end, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for adding, Belle, long enough now, please place a reference right behind the hook statement, and get rid of a bare url, more ref details welcome. My version would be shorter:
ALT1: ... that the Compagnie Impériale des Voitures in Paris operated 3,830 fiacres and carried over 10 million passengers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I used to rely on reflinks for that. I can't handle those citation templates. Belle (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The author of the article is no friend of templates, hint, hint. But just add a title, publisher, accessdate, in the style of the other refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about that. They are books, not online sources (although they are on Google books) so maybe they should go down in the references. Perhaps Smerus can sort them out as he wants them. (I don't enjoy trying to format refs, so I'm not going to do it. So, nur! Me, me, me!) Belle (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I really think that User:Belle should be co-credited if this goes ahead as a DYK.......ALT1 is fine by me...I am also not too het up about reference formats.--Smerus (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You, Belle, helped a lot, much more than needed, thank you. Credited! - Books should be in Bibliography if different pages are needed. - Now we only need a source for the hook (right behind it), or a different hook,
I have done the refs now. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I only did what Gerda told me to do as I was promised cheesecake when I finished. Belle (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Cheesecake, schmeesecake. Come round to my place in Slovakia and you can have some slivovica. If you come by fiacre, you can have some hruskovica.--Smerus (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg, offline sources accepted AGF, and an extra toast for collaboration! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg First paragraph under "In Paris" needs at least one cite, per DYK rules. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That paragraph was inserted after I was ready to approve, - what do the rules say about that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe User:Yoninah to be mistaken. The eligibility criteria only refer to sourcing for BLPs. There are no other comments on sourcing, excpet as regards the hook (which in the preswent case is covered). If Yoninah disagrees with this, they should provide chapter and verse.--Smerus (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, an 'unwritten rule' as the header describes it..... We learn something every day. Over then to Belle who created the paragraph in question.--Smerus (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The citation at the end of the next paragraph covered it; I split them for readability. That's rather a silly supplementary if you ask me (I know you didn't, but when did that ever stop me acting like you did) Belle (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol voting keep.svg @Belle: teh rulez, teh rulez ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg What happened? Now there are 2 more sections, "In Vienna" and "Today", without any cites. Yoninah (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
They were there before. The sky is blue. Fiakers run in Vienna. - Seriously: How would that be cited? [9] How that an act of Arabella takes place at the Fiakerball? I saw the opera. This is so. [10] - Other works are pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)



Argentine quota law

Created by Cambalachero (talk). Self nominated at 03:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC).







Horatio Chriesman

Created by Zigzig20s (talk). Self nominated at 10:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length, date, hook checks out. But the article needs to be reworked to avoid close paraphrase, see [11] --Soman (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've done some rewording, if you want to have another look. For the most part, I think what you see as close paraphrasing is just matching words, not phrases. I don't think close paraphrasing exists, but perhaps someone else would like to weigh in on this. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. I did a small change, and with your rewordings I don't see any problem anymore. --Soman (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Actually the source states that he wanted a site near Washington on the Brazos selected, not the city itself. Gatoclass (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I found a 1907 online source that is a little clearer and edited the article accordingly. However, it still doesn't say it was Washington-on-the-Brazos. It appears to be a small community in the same county. How about:
ALT1 ... that Horatio Chriesman was a surveyor who helped choose the seat of government for the Republic of Texas?
— Maile (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Review of ALT1: The above reviews of the article I accept as complete, and I take it on trust that it is satisfactory. I have a problem with ALT1. The inline citations provided in the article for this hook are #6, #1 and #7 in that order. Between them, they seem to say that Chriesman offered land for the seat of government, but that his offer was rejected. The text of the article does not say that he helped to choose, and neither do the online bits of the sources. So Zigzig20s, please could you (or anybody else) either (a) give us another hook, or (b) write ALT1 into the article with an inline citation (is it in offline citation #6?). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talkcontribs) 15:47, 9 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 16[edit]

Heramba

Heramba

  • ... 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)




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)



Ruth Budd, William Kuinka, Dirk Keetbaas

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)
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)



Pharnavaz I of Iberia

  • Comment: The editor who expanded this to GA is under a topic ban, and thus cannot claim credit for this article until after the ban is lifted.

Improved to Good Article status by Jaqeli (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 23:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

  • The picture is quite possibly a copyvio. Note that on its source page the uploader claims authorship, which is very unlikely. Dahn (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that they claim it is public domain, I don't see where they claim authorship. They do cite Pharnavaz as the author, which is incorrect. The date of authorship is claimed to be c. 1900, which if the author died around that time would mean that the pic is old enough. I'll see what I can dig up on the pic's origins.--¿3family6 contribs 02:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Commons details contain a link to a website, but I cannot tell where THAT website got the image from. I left a message on Jaqeli's talk page, but right now that editor is blocked - because of their work on this GA nom (yeah, it's complicated) - so they might not be able to reply until the block expires (which will be the end of this week).--¿3family6 contribs 15:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Jaqeli says that the author is unknown, and they will try to investigate the age of the photo.--¿3family6 contribs 15:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Picture has been nominated for deletion on Commons. This nomination will be in limbo until the Commons one has been closed; alternatively, the image can be removed from this nomination, which would allow it to be reviewed without waiting for the picture issue to be resolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed the image and the reference to it in the hook.--¿3family6 contribs 05:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review of the nomination needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Yikes what a bunch of problems. OK, then, let's get the donkey work done, at least. New enough (GA 17 June, nom 19 June), and long enough. No QPQ necessary. The hook is sourced to offline citation #46, which I take AGF. The article text is objective, neutral, and fully referenced. The first paragraph in the Life section is awkwardly-worded; as if it were written by an editor whose first language was not English. However the meaning remains clear so I shall not count it as an issue. The two thumbnail images in the article are free. Spot checks revealed no sources of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Issues: (1) "Antiochus" is a disambig link. (2) The pdf file in the bibliography is a deadlink. (3) The large image in the article has an SD template and IMO the template is valid because the artistic style of the image belongs to the second half of the 20th century, therefore the image is too new and cannot be out of copyright - so it has no valid licence. We shall have to wait for the outcome of the SD template discussion before passing this nom (unless someone removes the image from the article). Summary: When issues 1 and 2 are resolved, and when we know the outcome of issue 3, then this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk)
  • 1) The dab link in this case is valid. The article says "the generic name Antiochus" that the line of Selucid kings went by. So the name is not a specific person, but more a title. 2) The pdf is in a foreign language that I am not at all familiar with, so I can't find an alternative link. It is a scholarly article, so there are print or electronic forms of access, but they might require subscription. Suffice to say, the article is real, even though the link no longer works. 3) Like you said, let's wait and see.
Thank you Storye book for the review.--¿3family6 contribs 18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)



Uchchhishta Ganapati

Uchchhishta Ganapati

ALT1 ... that the Tantric deity Uchchhishta Ganapati (pictured) is often depicted with a naked goddess, both touching each other's private parts?

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 13:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New, long enough, hook with reference. Find no copyvio with one online source, others with AGF and image is in PD. I go with ALT hook (which pictured here). --Gfosankar (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's use grownup language, and the ; doesn't belong:

  • ALT2 ... that the Tantric deity Uchchhishta Ganapati (pictured) is often depicted with a naked goddess, each touching the other's genitals?

EEng (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In DYK, I would a simpler term "private parts" than "genitals". ALT3, ... that the Tantric deity Uchchhishta Ganapati (pictured) is often depicted with a naked goddess, each touching the other's private parts? Redtigerxyz Talk 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow Redtigerxyz's reasoning: "private parts" is not simpler, it's just baby talk. Let's be a little more adult and use grown-up terms like "genitals". --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to "genitals" either, which the article text already uses the term "genitalia" for the same.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think I prefer "private parts", "genitals" sounds too clinical. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hey guys, getting a bit distracted here? I take it that we have a hung jury on the wording, so how about we pass all three ALTs which are all OK anyway. They're all clear as to meaning, and none contains offensive language. In the US the ALT1 wording may be considered baby talk, but in the UK the same wording is seen as shyly archaic and prudish, and tends to be used most by the elderly. Therefore I don't think any of us can claim to be sure of the right answer. Initial review of 19 June by Gfosankar still stands and I take it on trust. I have replaced semi-colons with commas in the first two hooks in response to comment above. Good to go with original hook, ALT1 and ALT2, all checking out with online citation #2. --Storye book (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Never, ever use the phrase hung jury in a discussion of "private parts". EEng (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. If you don't understand, do not ask me to explain. Ask your grandmother.
I protest the use of a hyphen in semicolons. EEng (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re vulgar innuendo: Yes. I do English humour. I'm impressed that you handled that one and worked it up so adroitly. Re semi-colon: in the UK it can be written either way, and the Oxford dictionary has it spelled both ways. I understand that in the US it is normally written without the hyphen. --Storye book (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
A paradox planning to remove a patient's colon, thus inventing the semicolon
Another paradox relaxing at the lake
In the US it's spelled with a hemi-hyphen. Note: Images are recycled humor used previously in other discussions. EEng (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg After perusing this article and its sources, I am hesitant to move the hook to the prep areas yet. I started out with some concern about a need for copyediting in the article, but I started to become concerned about content. My first problem is with with the strong and prominent statement in the lead that this is "one of [the?] most popular [of the?] thirty-two forms of Ganesha". That statement isn't in the article body and it isn't supported by a footnote where it appears in the lead; I looked for some more information (I hoped to fix the wording and add a source), but I cannot find an indication that there are exactly 32 forms of Ganesha, and the lists that I found of the "most popular" did not include Uchchhista.
I was also surprised to find that, while the "Worship" section of the article describes the Uchchhishta Ganapatya sect as an active sect, the sources that I could access use past-tense verbs to describe it. I get the impression that this sect (which the sources call the Ucchishta Ganapati) is one that is described in the Vedic literature, and that it probably does not exist in modern times. Considering the hedonistic nature of the cult's practices, describing it as an active sect could be considered insulting if it is actually just an ancient sect described in the old literature. Therefore, before this goes to the main page, I'd like some clarification on the status of this sect.
I hope that the article creator, or other users familiar with Hindu religion and the sources, can help address these factual points. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)






Articles created/expanded on June 18[edit]

Allan Kournikova

  • ... that Anna Kournikova's brother, Allan, was featured in the 2013 documentary film The Short Game which showed him winning his second of three consecutive U.S. Kids Golf World Championships?

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 20:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Not a full review, just noting that if The Short Game is supposed to be part of the nomination, then it's a bit – short. Schwede66 06:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)



Tom Cushing

  • ... that Tom Cushing's play The Devil in the Cheese featured Bela Lugosi, an Egyptian god, and a bit of mummified cheese?
  • Reviewed: Marten Woudstra ‎
  • Comment: The hook takes information from several sentences in paragraph 9, which is collectively cited to citation 8.

Created/expanded by Gamaliel (talk). Self nominated at 21:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

  • The play doesn't feature Bela Lugosi, the first performance did.
ALT1 ... that Tom Cushing's play The Devil in the Cheese features a Greek bandit posing as a priest, an Egyptian god, adventures in the South Seas, and a bit of mummified cheese?
Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutral enough, no copyvio or plagiarism of the sources I could check. Article finishes rather suddenly but that's nothing to do with DYK eligibility. Ready to go if my ALT is OK (it's important to mention the South Seas at every opportunity lest we forget all those unfortunate shipwrecked mariners still stranded on its islands [Patriotic music of appropriate country plays. Reviewers stare meaningfully into the distance and wipe their eyes surreptiously]) Belle (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT1; I've struck the original hook due to the issue raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


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

Gray dorcopsis

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

No Mediocre

  • ... that "No Mediocre" is a "get-your-shit-together" type of record?
  • Comment: Not a self nomination.

Created by Ignorantart (talk), STATicVapor (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 10:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

  • The hook is no good as that claim is made by the artist himself and what we actually have in the article is " It’s a get-your-sh—together-type of-record" (so the sh- bit could be shopping or shoes, both of which I find more uplifting than shit; T.I. probably just didn't want to mention shopping or shoes in front of the reporter which is why it is partially blanked) Belle (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that "No Mediocre" was intended as "something to uplift women"?--Launchballer 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on June 19[edit]

Michel Disdier

Moved to mainspace by NFLisAwesome (talk), ZappaOMati (talk). Nominated by NFLisAwesome (talk) at 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Photo's a copyvio—kind of obvious at first glance (staged photo, new user's only contributions), but God, it took me a long time to find the original.[12] New (mainspaced on 30th—note that it's in the wrong WP:DYKN section and should be under June 30th not the 19th), article is not currently long enough (1465 b of prose), neutral, there is some close paraphrasing but the sentences are repeating basic facts so I'm not sure there's much to be done, still waiting on QPQ. Hook sources the fact to him in an interview. Now, he's fine for facts about himself but he isn't a reliable source for facts about NASCAR. Find another source that has vetted it? Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  14:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if DYKcheck is broken then or something, since mine's says 1613 characters. Regardless, I'll add to it if necessary. Regarding the hook sourcing, I'm not sure which one is correct: the current one (with the interview) has him saying he's the first Frenchman in NASCAR since 1979. However, one of the other sources provided (from a more reliable source) says he's the first since the 60s. Which one is more reliable? NFLisAwesome 18:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't compared them yet but I'd say a newspaper with editorial control is always more reliable than an individual speaking in praise of himself in an interview. This said, it shouldn't be too hard to find a replacement or to fact check who's actually right. DYKcheck isn't broken, but it's counting a couple of lines as prose that aren't prose (at the bottom of the page). czar  18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If that's the case, I believe I'll go with the newspaper source for now until I can find a different RS that says otherwise. For the lines counted, I take it you mean the one in the results section. I added extra, and now it says about 1610 characters. QPQ also provided. NFLisAwesome 18:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)





Frank J. G. Cunningham

Created by Skr15081997 (talk). Self nominated at 13:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC).




John Johnstone (East India Company)

  • ... that in 1765 the Scottish nabob John Johnstone returned home from India aged 31, with a fortune worth £25 million in 2014 money?

Created/expanded by BrownHairedGirl (talk). Self nominated at 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT2 ... that in 1765, Scottish nabob John Johnstone, aged 31, returned from India with a fortune equivalent to £25 million in 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talkcontribs) 05:05, 29 June 2014‎
    • Thanks, EEng. That's good rewrite of the main hook. Would you perhaps have the energy to do a full review? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


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)


Adrian P. Thomas, Scenes of a Crime

  • ... that Adrian P. Thomas's videotaped confession in the death of his four-month-old son was the center of the documentary film Scenes of a Crime, which is about coerced confessions?

Created/expanded by I am One of Many (talk). Self nominated at 22:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC).


Su Rong

  • ... that Su Rong is the highest-ranking official to come under investigation for corruption since Xi Jinping became China's president?

5x expanded by Zanhe (talk). Self nominated at 08:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Per DYK Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.— Maile (talk)
Done. -Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Verifying the stub has been removed. Needs complete review. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 PBA Governors' Cup

5x expanded by Burac21 (talk), PapaJeckloy (talk), WayKurat (talk). Nominated by PapaJeckloy (talk) at 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The hook needs a bolded word. More importantly, the hook is not directly cited in the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Bold done (obviously). MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Bold done, and the hook is now not cited on the article, directly. I have changed the statement. I think it is now qualified. -PapaJeckloy (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, your sources do not qualify the claim that this is the first time all games are being shown in HD. That is original research. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Are you sure of your statements? this is not an original research please prefer looking at the article this is the example, It is real that it is being aired high-definition on Cignal Digital TV, please prefer checking, this is a sample text on the article.
Games in the tournament are televised by TV5 and AksyonTV; games are also being simulcast in high definition through a special channel exclusive to Cignal Digital TV
Source 1 from SPIN.ph
Source 2 from InterAksyon Sports5
It's good to go, you can also check the references, there are also no other problems than that. -PapaJeckloy (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Well, that's because I changed it to remove that specific claim, which is not given by the source at all (yes, they're being shown in HD, but your citations do not make any claim that this is the first time they are all in HD). The hook and its specific wording must be cited in the article. Also, I forgot to mention, but I do not think that other parts of the article (player lists, results, etc.) have enough citations either. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 20[edit]

Snark sailboat

5x expanded by 842U (talk). Self nominated at 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @842U: Expansion is new enough, and easily long enough. Article is written okay, with no copyvio. Parts of the marketing section are unreferenced. Not sure that sailboatstogo.com is a reliable source. Hook is verified to a decent source though. I am not sure whether the second-person point of view should go in a hook. --Jakob (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Revised hook re second-person POV.842U (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Added images and citations to support co-branding marketing campaigns. Added citations (to support sales numbers and manufacturer estimate of sales. Added further inline citations. Holding this nomination... because??? 842U (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Citations should be inline. And there is still an unreliable source. Additionally, fair-use images that are too large have been added into the article. If their sole purpose is as a citation, then they should be deleted, since an inline citation would do just as well. --Jakob (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
After all this... I'm losing interest. At first you weren't sure about the reliability of the source and now you are sure that it's not acceptable. You later wanted each paragraph to have a citation and then you wanted each sentence to have a citation. Now the fair use images, which support the article, are "too large." Seriously. I'm getting... well... I'm nolonger sure the work put into this article merit a DYK nomination -- or further participation. 842U (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Seems to have been withdrawn. --Jakob (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


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?



Teresa Magbanua

5x expanded by PaintedCarpet (talk). Self nominated at 00:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg No problems with the length and sources. Article has been expanded 5x since creation. Both hooks are also sourced and in the maximum character length. It's GTG for me. -WayKurat (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Did you check for close paraphrasing? Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Ok, after double checking the sources, some of them does not directly mention the cited sentence. Ex: "She would often ride on horseback from Sara back to her hometown of Pototan, a 30 kilometres (19 mi) distance over rugged terrain.". The attached source does not mention this. Also some of the external links are dead. If the sources are aligned, it's good to go. -WayKurat (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I reworked the sentence you mentioned, since I might have inferred too much when writing the face out in my own words. It should better match the source now. I've also updated the links; the ones in there now should all work. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Symbol confirmed.svg - Rechecked sources. Dead links already removed, it's aligned so far. Both hooks are supported by multiple sources. Good to go for me. -WayKurat (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I've returned this from prep. The hook appears to be unsourced and there is a clear WP:PARAPHRASE issue here. For example - Source: When the Revolution against the Spaniards broke out in Iloilo province in October 1898, Nay Isa lost no time, despite the protest of her husband, in presenting herself to Gen. Perfecto Poblador, her uncle, who had been designated as the commander of the Northern Zone. After the initial hesitation, General Poblador relented and Nay Isa was given command of a bolo battalion. Article: Eager to help (and against the wishes of her husband), Magbanua left Sara and presented herself to her uncle, Major General Perfecto Poblador, who was commander of the Northern Zone at the time. While initially hesitant, General Poblador eventually relented and gave Magbanua the command of a bolo battalion. Gatoclass (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the source directly after the hook in the leas, so hopefully that's more clear. I also reworked several of the paragraphs to address paraphrasing concerns. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)





J. Mohammed Imam

  • ... that the Muslim League politician J.M. Imam was awarded the title "Mushir ul-Mulk" by the Maharaja of Mysore in 1945?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 10:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact is appropriately sourced, QPQ has been done and I observed no policy issues. What is the significance of the title "Mushir ul-Mulk"?
Pulled from prep; a translation of this honorific will be required or a new hook found, thanks Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Adding icon to prevent repromotion; issues need to be addressed per Gatoclass. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Could be something like 'National Advisor' or 'Councillor of the Kingdom'. --Soman (talk) 16:01, 10 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)


GolfScript

Created by APerson (talk). Self nominated at 01:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

  • "Hello World!" with quotes would be ""Hello World!"" which makes the hook confusing. Hook doesn't seem to be supported by the reference (at least not directly). Article is new enough, long enough (just), but follows the sources pretty closely (although this may be hard to avoid with technical language). Belle (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Added another source. APerson (talk!) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I know this is stupid, but the new source is a publicly editable wiki, so not what Wikipedia has deemed a reliable source. You might also consider just dropping the "with quotes" at the end of the hook, as it doesn't make it less accurate but does make it punchier. (And...probably nothing to do with you directly, but the Hello world program article seems to imply that the output is supposed to be "Hello world" (no exclamation mark) whereas nearly every example, including this one, is "Hello world!" (with exclamation mark). )Belle (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I just removed the final two words and capitalized the second word in the program. APerson (talk!) 02:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Added a source for the hook. APerson (talk!) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg I'm going to say OK on this, even though it requires a teeny tiny bit of brain power to get from the source to the hook. Everything else checks out (see above), but you might want to prepare for a possible push back further up the chain (so if you can find an authoritative source which actually has the exact text "Hello World!" ram it in) Belle (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg The article looks to me to be lacking in independent sources demonstrating notability. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Is notability something we judge here? I was told that it wasn't. Belle (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is - all articles have to conform to basic policies. Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be nominated at AFD then? Belle (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not my job to do that, my job as a reviewer is simply to identify the issues. If someone adds more reliable sources, this article can be reassessed, if not it will probably fail. I suppose one way to get more eyes on the page would be to nominate for AFD, but again, I don't see it as my role to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. @APerson:, I'm afraid your article is probably going to be stuck in limbo unless you find different sources or somebody puts it up for deletion. I understand very little about the standard for sources except that they seem to be different for every article. Belle (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Rather than leave this in drifting any longer, I've nominated the article at AfD due to the notability concerns that Gatoclass gave, and with which I concur. At the end of the AfD process, this will either be considered notable or will have been deleted, at which point the nomination can proceed or be closed. For now, it will remain in limbo for another week or so. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Cebrennus rechenbergi

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)

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)

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


Articles created/expanded on June 21[edit]

John W. Hair

  • ... that in 1930 the former mayor of Saskatoon, John Hair, said that unemployment in the city was under control only to be proven wrong?

Created by Big iron (talk). Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 15:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT1... that during the Great Depression the former mayor of Saskatoon, John Hair, said that unemployment in the city was under control only to be proven wrong?--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I have to object to both hooks. The article on which they're based is a fun frolic through the dangers of futurism, and doesn't give the impression that communicating facts is its primary purpose. EEng (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I have added a book source to prove that he had actually said so during a conference.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not whether he said it. It's the "proved wrong" bit -- I mean, maybe it was under control (whatever that means) at the time he said it. Also, was he the former mayor when he said it? If not, we should drop "former". EEng (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @EEng: At the time he gave that statement, he was the city's mayor and during that time unemployment in the city wasn't under control. If you read the two pages of the book carefully, then you will come to know what actually had happened.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. He was the mayor, not former mayor. Might I suggest

  • ALT2... that when the mayor of Saskatoon, John Hair, said in 1930 that unemployment in his city was under control, he was "terribly wrong"?
  • @EEng: The hook is fine. I have no problem with it. You can review the article and give comments for improvements.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook is settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Alonzo Davis

Moved to mainspace by Chris troutman (talk). Self nominated at 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New (mainspaced 21st), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check, QPQ done but doesn't appear to be finished. Hook's source isn't online, so I'll AGF, but isn't there some online source for this major fact? On citations: Why are there no page citations for Black Los Angeles? Now Dig This citation is wrong—link's a website, not a book. Also want to note that a cursory look at the current sources make the article look like a collection of passing mentions (from a footnote here, from a mention there)—would be helpful to cite a few more fuller length articles on Davis. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I did my part for the "Jazzi P" QPQ. The author admits they can't properly source their hook. How is that my problem? Yes, the sourcing for Alonzo Davis is thin in places but he has more than passing mention in Riggs and Charlwood. Now Dig This is a book, as evidenced by the isbn. I included a link to the Hammer museum's website about the collection the book is based on, rather than provide no link at all. Regardless, that's beside the point of the QPQ. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Shaughnessy, 1st Baron Shaughnessy

5x expanded by Orangemike (talk). Self nominated at 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Failed on the first check. Expansion is only 4.8X (2,350B11,320B), not the minimum 5.
    Other than that, the article appears well-written and promising, but I didn't check any further. Maybe Orangemike would like to expand the article a little more? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Alas, I feel that to do so would be to artificially pad it for the sake of getting a DYK placed. I decline to do that. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On further consideration, I've added a bit here and there that I'd omitted before, drawing on the ODNB article mostly. Does it hit 5X?--Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Orangemike: Yes, it definitely exceeds 5X now. Good work.
    However, please note: WP:DYKAR#D2 "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." This article has more than 10 uncited paras. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)






Beryl Randle

  • ... that Beryl Randle broke two world records, nearly 40 years apart?
  • Reviewed: tbc

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Self nominated at 11:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg QPQ has not yet been done. 97198 (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on June 22[edit]

Etheostoma variatum

Etheostoma variatum.jpg

  • Reviewed: Hemlock Hoax, the Detective

Created by Spirit of Eagle (talk). Self nominated at 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg} Good length, good sources, no major issues to report. It's a go for promotion. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg This may sound picky, but the article says they bury and abandon their eggs, which is a bit different from burying their (presumably) live "children". Maybe the hook should be modified. EEng (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That is actually kind of the point. My claim is, strictly speaking, entirely accurate as they do in fact bury then abandon their offspring (as cited in the source). I've just stated it in a way to make it more interesting for DYK purposes so that more people will open the article and learn about the fish. I've seen plenty of DYKs do this, although I'd be happy to address this if you strongly object. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. Are eggs "offspring"/"children"/"young"? Perhaps it depends on whether they're fertilized or not. We better be careful not to somehow wander into a debate over abortion! How about "bury and abandon their progeny" -- that should get a lot of clicks. I agree with you about latitude in hooks, BTW. I guess the reference to "children" is what caught my eye in the first place, but now I'm at sea about this. So to speak.

I guess "offspring" sounds a bit less like live, swimming young, so maybe that would be better. But you decide. EEng (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed children to offspring in the hook above. This should be both strictly biologically accurate (as in it does not refer to a specific developmental stage) and interesting to read. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
To avoid confusion I've restored the original hook to what it was when nominated; Spirit's new hook is below. EEng (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "no specific developmental stage". It's nice to do a little extra work and get it just right. EEng (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Eggs are not "offspring", I think the proposed hook is misleading and shouldn't be accepted. We don't want our readership to feel hoodwinked after taking the trouble to open an article. Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
According to Spirit offspring is ambiguous as to developmental stage, and I guess I went along. But if not, what should we say? EEng (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Eggs. But the hook is not very interesting anyway. Suggested alt:
  • ALT2: * ... that the presence of the Variegate darter in rivers and streams is often viewed as an indicator of good water quality?
I might add that the switching between the terms "darter" and "dace" in the article needs to be explained or fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've rephrased Hook #2 to make it a bit more interesting. (Hopefully you don't mind rhyming). Also, I'll be fixing the dace/darter issue shortly. It should state darter throughout. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Update: Every mention of "dace" now reads "darter". Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)



Lourdinha Bittencourt

Lourdinha Bittencourt, a member of the Trio de Ouro

Created by Rosiestep (talk), Krenakarore (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 02:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting life on good sources, pt sources accepted AGF, and I understand it enough to tell you that you possible confused refs 2 and 3 for the hook. Please get rid of the ALLCAPS in the references, even if they have it. I find it a bit confusing to read that she took part in a trio, but then see her with three people? Can you clarify that? The image is free in Brazil, possibly free elsewhere, but likely too small in stamp size. It's great in the infobox! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


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)



Articles created/expanded on June 23[edit]

C. T. Loo

C. T. Loo

  • ... that art dealer C. T. Loo (pictured) fell in love with a French milliner, but married her 15-year-old daughter instead?
  • Reviewed: not a self-nom

Moved to mainspace by CWH (talk). Nominated by Zanhe (talk) at 20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article was moved into mainspace on 23rd June and is thus new enough and long enough. The hook fact is interesting and well sourced. I saw no evidence of policy issues. QPQ not required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The first paragraph under "Career and influence as an art dealer" and under "Controversies over Loo's export of Chinese art" need at least one cite, per DYK rules. Also, the hook fact is not cited directly after the sentence in question. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Added two references to para #1 under "Career and Influences." The citation for the paragraph includes the hook fact. Should I add a duplicate? ch (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do add the duplicate reference citation. Because it's important to ensure that the reader can find the sources for the hook fact, we often need to include footnotes that seem redundant. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. In fact, I found and added a better source so it doesn't look redundant. ch (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The first paragraph under "Career and influence as an art dealer" still lacks at least one cite. Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Done -- and a few more. I just found the online version of Lenain's biography, and added a few details as well as the references. This guy is fascinating, so I hope the DYK will attract a few people to read about him beyond the sexy hook.ch (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)





Ilie Moscovici

Moscovici ca. 1920

Created by Dahn (talk). Self nominated at 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC).




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)

The Hippodrome, Aldershot

Created/expanded by Jack1956 (talk). Self nominated at 15:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. NPOV. Article well-cited. One of the sources (Glasgow Herald) for the hook gives 1935, not 1931. QPQ done. Using Dup detector, there are some copyvio/close paraphrasing issues: "John Warren, Chas Karnac & Co, The Four Debutants, Sisters Jerome, Tom Westwall, J.H Wakefield, Duncan & Godfrey, Chas Kitts and Rhoda Windrum" , "designed by the well known theatre architect Bertie Crewe", "Joe Loss and his orchestra, Primo Scala and His", "February 1913 with a twice nightly variety show" are all identical to the text in http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/AldershotTheatres/AldershotHippodrome.htm. Edwardx (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of what you quote are lists which I can rearrange but they are still going to be a list. I don't think anyone can copyright a list. The rest I have rewritten. The Glasgow Herald is wrong in stating 1935 as Mason's career was established by then but is right in stating his debut was at The Hippodrome, which is why I need it as a source. Jack1956 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Even if not a copyright issue, the lists still are a close paraphrasing issue, and need to be reordered. Using Dup detector on another source, Cinema Treasures, we get several other close paraphrasing issues, with these all being identical with the article: "in the orchestra stalls 258 in the dress circle 272 in the balcony and", "dressing rooms by march 1914 kinemacolour films were being screened", "florrie ford gracie fields harry champion ella shields tommy fields", and "arthur lucan as old mother riley with kitty mcshane". As we have one source stating 1931 and another 1935, I think we need a second source stating 1931. Edwardx (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have reordered the lists and rewritten the other issues. The second source in the lead states 1931, as do the other sources further down in the article. Jack1956 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. All checks out, and 1931 is now thoroughly sourced! Edwardx (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry, but all the sources for this hook contradict one another, I think a new hook will have to be found. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think ALT2 "...that actor James Mason made his stage debut in Rasputin the Rascal Monk at The Hippodrome in Aldershot in 1931?" would be fine. The Glasgow Herald claim that he played Rasputin is probably just sloppy reporting, but this hook hedges it by not mentioning the role, and there are no other contradictions. Belle (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, the first source, which is Mason's biography and obviously the most reliable of these sources, says he debuted at another theatre in Aldershot. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Sorry, I didn't notice that until edit conflict time (for some reason it wasn't in 5-foot high flashing letters the first time I read it; these book editors, honestly!). It will need another hook. Belle (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I had verified the hook myself through one of the sources, but GC is right -- another (Glasgow Herald) gets the year wrong (and maybe he saw other problems). According to my personal standard -- that articles inevitably are imperfect but hooks must be ironclad because they are displayed on MP -- pulling was therefore justified. What, then, to do? Well, in this case we need to explicitly acknowledge the conflict of sources and resolve it. I'm afraid we need the nominator back for this. Jack1956, I summon thee! This is really an article, not DYK, issue, so maybe that discussion should go on the article talk, and come back here when done. To make things more complicated, the issues is less about Hippodrome than about about Mason, so maybe Talk:James Mason is the right venue. I'm tired now. EEng (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
[Added PS] I agree that GH can just be discounted, but I'm afraid it's worse than that, since the full-length bio gives the title as simply The Rascal. Now I'm really tired. EEng (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
[Added PPS] What GC said. EEng (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If y'all encourage me, I'll come up with a new hook on the theme of

Peter Sellers appeared there in February 1948 as a drummer and was billed as "Britain's answer to Gene Krupa".[9] Sellers later described his appearance at the theatre: "I had a crushing defeat in Variety in Aldershot — a terrible thing it was". His complaint was that the band accompanying him were four bars behind as they were eating their sandwiches while they were playing

EEng (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry everybody - I didn't realise this was going to cause so many problems. How about something like:
ALT3 ...that Peter Sellers complained that the band accompanying his drum act at the The Hippodrome in Aldershot were four bars behind as they were eating their sandwiches while playing? Jack1956 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I fixed beats-->bars in ALT3, per the source (though I wonder if beats wasn't what was really meant...). How about
ALT3A ...that Peter Sellers, billed as "Britain's answer to Gene Krupa" at the The Aldershot Hippodrome in 1948, complained later that the band was four bars behind because they were eating sandwiches?
EEng (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me Jack1956 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Edwardx, I summon thee for the green tick! EEng (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bangladeshi nationalism

5x expanded by Kmzayeem (talk). Self nominated at 11:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC).


Dinah Nuthead

Created by Gobonobo (talk). Self nominated at 04:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hook fact(s) present and cited, article is new enough. However, at ~1200 characters it's about a fifth too short and would need a little further expansion. Ref 3 would indicate there's more information to work with, as she's the subject of at least three pages in the cited book. I'm also not keen on the construction "woman printer"; "female" would read better. GRAPPLE X 05:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Article is now expanded. I've provided alts that use "female" instead. gobonobo + c 23:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Big Smo, Kuntry Livin'

  • ... that Big Smo, who made his major-label debut with the album Kuntry Livin', is considered one of the foremost grassroots hick hop artists?

Created by HotHat (talk), 3family6 (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 00:39, 24 June 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 [13]). 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)


General Military Academy

Coat of Arms of the Academy

Created by Aldendor (talk). Self nominated at 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Welcome to DYK. I hope you enjoy your time here and nominate more articles in the future.
  • Review: Article long enough, new enough and neutral. QPQ is not required as this is the first nomination. AGF on offline/foreign sources. Image appears to be free. Inline citations are generally used, but the last paragraph needs one. There are some lines which could use a reference as well.
  • First hook is short and directly sourced. The second hook is short and more interesting IMO, but the whole paragraph is lacking a source to support.
  • Symbol question.svg In short, the article needs more references and the second hook needs a direct reference. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already referenced several claims in the article through the official website. Direct references for the hook can be found here ([14][15]) and have been added. Most of the information was taken from the official website of the Academy.--Aldendor (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The referencing has been improved and the second hook is now directly sourced (I verified it via Google translator). However, since my first review, the article had been tagged with orphan and outdated tags (orange). I've removed the orphan tag as the article had been linked since then, but I'm not sure about the outdated tag. I'm reluctant to give a pass until that is resolved. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I think the point behind the outdated tag is that the article does not tell anything about the current state of the academy, and it needs to. The most recent event mentioned by date is the 1942 reestablishment, though clearly King Felipe VI was a student well after that date. This comes under WP:DYKSG#D7: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. Ignoring the present academy means that it's missing a critical set of information. Aldendor, we need to know whether you plan to bring the article up to date. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 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 [16]. 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: [17]. 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]

Fenix Rage

Created by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

Reserve Police Battalion 101

Józefów monument

Created by Poeticbent (talk). Self nominated at 16:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC).



John N. Cole

5x expanded by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 03:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

Jalen Brunson

Jalen Brunson

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Leaning Tower of Toruń

Leaning Tower of Toruń, viewed from the east

  • ... that legend has it that a monk of the Order of Teutonic Knights was ordered to build the Leaning Tower of Toruń (pictured) as punishment for falling in love with a woman and meeting her in secret, with the tilt of the tower signifying the deviance of his conduct from the rules of the Order?
  • Reviewed: Not self-nomination
  • Comment: This was an AfC draft which I copyedited before accepting; the sources are all Polish. It would be good if someone who knows Polish could look it over.

Created by 79.186.144.253 (talk), 5.174.105.21 (talk). Nominated by FireflySixtySeven (talk) at 20:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

  • The hook is over 200 characters. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)



Fanny Bullock Workman

Fanny Bullock Workman

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Figureskatingfan (talk) and Wadewitz. Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 15:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC).



Radius clause

Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 02:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New (24th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check, QPQ done (though it could use some attention because the nom is still going). Hook doesn't have an immediate ref in article (see 3b). There's also a fair amount of close paraphrasing[18] (instances that aren't the obvious phrases) so those sentences should be completely recast. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  14:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Vigils for Peace

Vigil for Peace gathering in Hamburg on June 23, 2014

Created by Tfine80 (talk). Self nominated at 02:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg There's a number of unsourced statements in this article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)



The Night We Called It a Day

Created by 3family6 (talk). Self nominated at 02:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg The article was created today so it is new enough. The hook fact is sourced to reference number one which states it was a product of one week's recording. There is enough information and looking good. This is good to go.Rain the 1 22:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Did you check the sources for close paraphrasing? Yoninah (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As this review isn't technically complete, I'm proposing an ALT, which shouldn't take more than a few seconds to evaluate.--¿3family6 contribs 14:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Need a review of the new ALT, plus a check for neutrality and close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Maurice Curtis

Maurice Curtis as Samuel Plastrick

  • ... that actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was hugely successful portraying a Jewish salesman character but was indicted for the murder of a policeman?
  • ALT1:...that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted for the murder of a policeman?

Created by Rob at Houghton (talk). Self nominated at 19:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

New enough (at <24 hours old), long enough (nearly double the 1500 character minimum), plenty of inline citations, no NPOV issues (even w/regard to alleged murder, obviously a very touchy subject), and no copyvios. As for the hook, while it is interesting and everything, it seems weird to graft together two unrelated facts like that (i.e. "he was a successful actor" and "he was indicted for murder"). Therefore, this nomination seems to me to be Symbol question.svg tentative. Perhaps a new hook focusing only on the murder (maybe contrasting his original indictment with his later being found not guilty) would be better. Jinkinson talk to me 22:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. To say, on MP, that someone was indicted for murder, but not mention he was acquitted, is the kind of thing that makes the Foundation's attorney's wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night. And "contrasting" these two unrelated facts is just weird without some nexus. EEng (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think any attorney has to worry about it, as you can't libel a dead man. Still, an alternative hook has been added. Let me know what you think. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest for --> of:
  • ALT2:...that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted of the murder of a policeman?
EEng (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps you'll enjoy Widener Library. Maybe we could do the same for Houghton?
I'm happy with that hook. Also, not sure what you're asking regarding Widener. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I wrote almost the entirety of the Widener article -- Houghton has a somewhat less storied history but I thought together we could put some color into its article. On second thought
  • ALT2A:...that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted of a policeman's murder?

EEng (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • First hook is the best IMO, the "Jewish salesman character" angle is quite intriguing. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned we can't be mentioning indictment without mentioning acquittal (especially for a BLP) but this would be OK -- I don't care otherwise:
  • ALT0A: ... that actor Maurice Curtis (pictured), who was hugely successful portraying a "Jewish salesman" character, was at one point acquitted of a policeman's murder?
EEng (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What on earth is wrong with "indicted" alone? This guy is hardly BLP, he's an historical character. And IMO it makes for a more intriguing hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, was thinking of a different situation which was a BLP. Nonetheless, all other things being equal it's best in criminal matters to give the outcome when available. Personally I'd take 2A but if you think the indictment is more intriguing that's fine with me. EEng (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. I remember now -- it was the "but" in the original hook that seemed so weird.
On reflection, I think ALT0A with "acquitted" works just as well and your point about outcomes is valid - it arguably looks a little coy to avoid it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I question the arbitrary link between playing a Jewish character and being accused of murder; it sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. I think you should focus either on the role and its outcome or the accusation and its outcome rather than a mish-mash of the two.
  • ALT3: ... that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) built the Peralta Park Hotel in Berkeley, California with revenues he earned from playing the role of a Jewish traveling salesman?
  • ALT4: ... that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted of the murder of a policeman after four trials, two hung juries, and a procedural dismissal, though his reputation was ruined? Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I question the arbitrary link between playing a Jewish character and "revenue" and real estate ownership; it sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. Crisco 1492, we've been through something like this before -- can you lend a hand here? EEng (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd stick with Yoninah's alts, preferably ALT4. ALT3 is acceptable to me as well, assuming that this character was his most popular (and thus the one that he got paid the most to play). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I like ALT4 best as well, but I thought you might have something to say about dragging in "anti-Semitism" at the drop of a hat. Do we have to have that kind of stuff thrown around all the time? EEng (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see how such could be interpreted from the hook, although that wouldn't be my first reading. I should note that, unlike that earlier issue at WT:DYK with the other editor, Yoninah is focusing on the hook rather than the individual who wrote the hook/comment (thus avoiding the WP:NPA issues). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oops! I inadvertently made that Jewish-Shylock connection in ALT3. Striking ALT3. Yoninah (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Could I just suggest the replacement of the word "but" for "though" in ALT4? --Rob at Houghton (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Good catch, Rob. I made the tweak. Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah:, you are not confusing the actor with the role in your "Shylock" comment are you? I couldn't see anything in the article to indicate that Curtis himself was Jewish, and assumed from the context he was not. With regard to the hook itself, I thought the mention of the "Jewish travelling salesman" character was useful because the article deals with anti-semitic attitudes of the period and the hook alerts readers with an interest in the phenomenon to that fact. Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Shylock remark referred to the hook's not-so-subtle connection between Jews and making money. I also like the "Jewish traveling salesman" angle, but perhaps in this kind of hook:
  • ALT5: ... that 19th-century stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) said his hugely successful role as a Jewish traveling salesman was based on a real-life salesman who was "one of the most comical men that I ever met"? Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. EEng (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Gatoclass:, could you sign off on ALT5 please? Yoninah (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note on image: This appears to be Curtis in costume as the traveling salesman. If so, should we put (pictured, in costume) after "salesman" in the hook? Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The hook is already over 200 characters and really should be trimmed, so I don't think it's viable to add "in costume" unless other parts of the hook are trimmed. IMO it's pretty obvious he's in costume anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. But ALT5 is only 196 char (without "pictured"). If you really want to trim it, perhaps take out "19th-century". Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT6 ... that 19th-century actor Maurice Curtis said his hugely successful characterization (pictured) of a Jewish traveling salesman was based on "one of the most comical men that I ever met"?

(In the 19C all actors were stage actors -- no film.) EEng (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think "character" should be "characterization" in that hook. But, I'm sure there's a better hook in there somewhere, I'm just too tired to find it tonight. I will try again tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
With moderate effort we can drag this out another few weeks. EEng (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg On reflection, I think EEng's proposed alt (with a slight tweak) will do the job. ALT6 verified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)



Margaret Arlene Payne

  • ... that Margaret Arlene Payne, a maternal great-aunt of President Barack Obama, was a professor of nutrition?
  • ALT1:... that Margaret Arlene Payne, a professor of nutrition at UNC Chapel Hill, was a maternal great-aunt of President Barack Obama?

Created/expanded by Aumnamahashiva (talk). Self nominated at 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

Michael Botticelli (politician)

Michael Botticelli

5x expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self nominated at 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

  • There's no way ALT1 can be factual, particularly if alcohol is included -- he might be the first to admit to a problem. EEng (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I rewrote it. Now it's factually accurate, without any doubt. I'll provide QPQ today. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; note that this is a WP:BLP, and such issues should be considered as part of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)



Trijata

  • ... 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).

Articles created/expanded on June 25[edit]

Khar Bii

  • Reviewed: Ympyrätalo
  • Comment: It still may be the country's most popular show, but I couldn't find any more recent references one way or the other...

Created by Calliopejen1 (talk). Self nominated at 18:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

Hope in Front of Me

Created by HotHat (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 19:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC).

Forever After

  • Comment: I know that hooks are required to have a citation immediately afterward in the article. However, this hook is unusual in that it is merely pointing out an interesting song given in the track listing, and typically track listings do not need to cite a source because they are assumed verifiable by the album itself.

Created by HotHat (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 18:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC).

  • I sourced it by AllMusic and Jesus Freak Hideout, so it is sourced now for the track name.HotHat (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Devasena

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).




John McClure (producer)

  • ...that record producer John McClure kept his Grammy Awards in a box in his barn?
  • Reviewed: tbc

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Self nominated at 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. NPOV. Using Dup detector, no copyvios or close paraphrasing found. Heavily reliant on just one source, but it is a NYT obituary, and there is nothing controversial and it is not a BLP. The hook is good, and it is cited. QPQ needed. I tried to fix the link to the second ref, by adding the "http://", and this link to "examiner.com", gives the message, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." I'm not sure how best to deal with that, but it needs to be addressed. Edwardx (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As DYKcheck says this article has only 1110 prose characters, I'm at a loss as to why it is called "long enough" in the original review, as it is quite far from that. In addition, Examiner.com is not a reliable source, and is very unlikely to be removed from the blacklist, so if this is intended for DYK, Andy Mabbett, I recommend removing the citation from the article and finding alternate sourcing. Finally, a QPQ is still required for this article, and should be supplied in a timely manner. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit shocked that I wrote that it was long enough, when it clearly is not. My sincere apologies for that schoolboy error. Edwardx (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on June 26[edit]

Anna Crusis Women's Choir

Cathy Roma

  • Reviewed: Jack and Ed Biddle, Nancy M. Hill
  • Comment: New article for Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon, June 26, 2014. I will be on vacation until mid-July, so I won't be able to respond to concerns on this one until I get back -- sorry about that, but unless I nominate this now, I won't be able to (5 day rule). Regarding images, I've filed the OTRS requests and asked that the providers of the images send supporting OTRS emails. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self nominated at 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC).


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)


The Boat Race 1997

Improved to Good Article status by The Rambling Man (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 15:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

  • First Italian rower in the Boat Race may be a suitable alt hook for this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt 2:... that the 1997 Boat Race contained the first Italian to compete at the event? Thanks, Matty.007 18:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The article (and related source) only says that Roberto Blando was the first Italian for Oxford, not the entire event. How about ALT3 : ... that the 1997 Boat Race was the last one to be sponsored by Beefeater Gin? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Incorrect on both counts. The source says he was the first Blue from Italy. The article says he was the first Blue from Italy. If you don't understand what you're reading, best not to comment on it. Oh, and your review was so in-depth that you missed the typo in the title of the source you claimed to have checked. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, so in conclusion, Alt 2 is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful if the reviewer User:Ritchie333 could re-visit and do something with this nomination rather than just leave it to flounder. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't review (no DYK blobs), just suggested an alt. If you say ALT2 is fine, then it's fine. Best leave it up to somebody else to see if ALT2 or ALT3 is the goer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, you just claimed the suggested "article (and related source)" didn't substantiate the hook, which was clearly erroneous. It did provide an excellent example of how not to review DYKs (blobs or not), so thanks for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)



Aaron Carapella

Created by I am One of Many (talk). Self nominated at 22:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

  • He doesn't make Pre-Columbian era maps as that would involve time travel. Why not use the first line of the article:
ALT1 ... that self-taught cartographer Aaron Carapella makes maps of the locations and names of Pre-Columbian indigenous tribes of North America circa 1490? Belle (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is fine with me. Time travel would be a great way to construct these maps though!  :) I am One of Many (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; striking original hook due to objection above. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Zaccheus Mason

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





Articles created/expanded on June 27[edit]

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).


Lebih Indah

Created by Syfuel (talk). Self nominated at 09:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Paratropis tuxtlensis

Paratropis tuxtlensis male.jpg

Created by G S Palmer (talk). Self nominated at 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg A nice contribution by a first-time DYK participant (no QPQ needed). New enough, long enough, no evidence of close paraphrasing or copyvio, and adequately sourced (note: I inserted some additional footnotes so there would be at least one footnote in each paragraph, after ascertaining that the information came from the ZooKeys source). Great image for DYK; it's used in the article and is appropriately licensed.
I have just one concern regarding the hook fact. Except for the least reliable source here (i.e., the news blurb in Science, Space & Robots), the sources do not definitively state that the dirt is for camouflage. Rather, that is stated as a surmise or a possibility (e.g., "possibly as a defense mechanism because the soil particles encrusted on the body cuticle serves as camouflage", "could ... serve as camouflage"). Accordingly, the article and hook should be revised to indicate that this is a supposition. For the hook, I suggest something like this:
  • That works: for the article, I could change the wording to something like this: "It is surmised/theorized that this serves as a form of camouflage to conceal it from both predators and prey." Thoughts? G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it needs to be that complicated. Something like "This could be a form of camouflage to conceal it from both predators and prey" should suffice. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT2. Have struck original hook and ALT1 due to issues raised above. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 8 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. [19] _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)
[20] 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)


Jayanti (Hinduism)

Shukra

  • ... that Jayanti is said to have requested the god Shukra (pictured) to create a haze to shield their lovemaking from the world for ten years?

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 07:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Length, age, sourcing OK. No apparent copyvio issues. However, there's a substantial deficiency that prevents me from clearing the article for the main page: the prose is so deficient that the article is, in places, incomprehensible. For example, I can't figure out what "and their refuge Shukra's mother Kavyamata" means; "casts a shell of magic" probably should refer to a "spell"; in the lead, "Jayanti is daughter" leaves open whether she is "the" or "a" daughter; "Shukra perform severe tapas (austerities)" mislinks to a Spanish dish and austerity doesn't mean what the author seems to thinks it means, and so forth. This article requires substantial copyediting.  Sandstein  20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Sandstein, While I agree the "the" was missed and there may more minor grammarical issues, but all other words are accurate.
  • refuge is "any place, person, action, or thing that offers or appears to offer protection, help, or relief"
  • tapas (now linked correctly) is often translated as austerities [21]. Austerities in English mean "the trait of great self-denial (especially refraining from worldly pleasures)"; "asceticism as a form of religious life; usually conducted in a community under a common rule and characterized by celibacy and poverty and obedience" [22]
  • "shell of magic" is also accurate. It means an outer protective cover of magic. Other uses: [23] "cast" means "To give a form to; arrange".Redtigerxyz Talk 05:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg OK, thanks. The words chosen may be technically accurate, but they may confuse readers, e.g. because "cast a shell" reads very similar to the more common "casts a spell". I still recommend copyediting the article to make it more clear. However, these are not DYK issues, so it's good to go, I suppose.  Sandstein  07:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I did some more copyediting to conform with English grammar. However, I don't understand who Indra is. Could you say something about him, and why he wants to thwart Shukra, in the first paragraph in which he is introduced? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, the lead says "Jayanti is the daughter of Indra, the king of the devas (gods) and ruler of Svarga (heaven), and his consort Shachi. She is described as the wife of Shukra, the god of the planet Venus and the guru of the asuras (demons). " Should I repeat his designation in the Legends part? Redtigerxyz Talk 05:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Alan Sisitsky

Created by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 01:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

  • The original hook is better than ALT1 which is basically telling us that a senator intended to try and repeal a statute with which he disagreed; nothing "hooky" in that. Belle (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Note I redid the first hook and added a second alternate hook. The original hook stated that Sisitsky was expelled when he was actually named. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 28[edit]

St. Florian's Psalter

Illustrated card

Created by Tymek (talk), Piotrus (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 11:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I added "pictured". Interesting article on good sources, Polish sources accepted AGF. English source says abbey, therefore I would link to that, not the village. The hook is sourced, but a bit boring, - anything more specific? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)





CitizenShipper

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)


Kvinden & Samfundet

First issue cover of Kvinden & Samfundet

  • ... that Denmark's Woman & Society (first cover pictured), published since 1885, claims to be the oldest women's magazine in the world?

Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 12:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Length, date verified. Hook's foreign-language ref accepted AGF. All non-lede paragraphs have refs; all refs appear to be RS. No apparent close-paraphrasing issues. Img is from Commons. QPQ done. GTG. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article Lady's Magazine has an older illustration and claims that there was a lady's magazine in 1693. Maybe the web site does make this claim but first feminist magazine might be more defendable. Victuallers (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The claim is that W&S is the oldest i.e. the oldest still publishing. L.M. is defunct. EEng (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Valentino Pittoni

Valentino Pittoni

  • ... that in 1920 the socialist politician Valentino Pittoni (pictured) argued that Trieste should have become a state in the Austrian republic?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 08:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT1: ... that in 1920 the socialist politician Valentino Pittoni (pictured) argued that the Italian city of Trieste should have become a state in the Austrian republic?
  • In ALT1 I added "the Italian city of" before Trieste to make the hook clearer for the geographically challenged (like myself). 97198 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with ALT1. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; struck original hook in favor of ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on June 29[edit]

Milo Moiré

  • ... that performance artist Milo Moiré's work has been called "absurd, gratuitous, trite and desperate"?

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

Marcel Perez

  • ... that the silent film actor and director Marcel Perez had directed 150 films featuring the character Robinet and was popularly called Robinet?

Created/expanded by Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk), Skr15081997 (talk). Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 08:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC).


Tall: The American Skyscraper and Louis Sullivan

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

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

Image-x-generic.svg
Add caption text!

  • Reviewed: I'm on it.
  • Comment: These articles aren't finished: McLemore is not yet up to DYK length, I believe. But I'm on the road, and don't know when I can finish stuff up--so consider this a place marker, to prevent the nomination from going past the expiration date.

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 . Hook is too long, QPQ pending. FindAGrave.com and USGenWeb. 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)


Caroline Harriet Abraham

Panorama of St John's College

Created by Stuartyeates (talk), Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ needed. NPOV. Well-cited, including both hooks. Dup detector revealed no significant close paraphrasing or copyvios. Image suitably licensed for main page. I've added an ALT2.
QPQ done. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. All good now. Edwardx (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To prep2 as

... that Caroline Abraham's paintings of early New Zealand settlements (St John's College, Auckland pictured) are an important source of information on the region during this period?

EEng (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this from prep as I have been unable to verify the claim that her paintings are "an important source of information for this period" in the provided source. Also, I think the other two hooks are substandard, so either ALT2 will need to be properly sourced or a new hook found. Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)



We Were So Beloved

Created by I am One of Many (talk). Self nominated at 00:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. NPOV. Dup detector reveals no unavoidable close paraphrasing or copyvios. The sentence "These middle-class survivors of The Holocaust are deeply troubled by guilt that is not theirs." whilst cited, would be better with an explicit attribution to the source, as otherwise it sounds like WP:OR. The article is well-cited, but the hook fact needs a citation immediately after it in the article. I feel that there might be a better way of expressing the concept in the hook, but I'm struggling to find it! Edwardx (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • First, thanks for the careful review!. The "These middle-class survivors of The Holocaust are deeply troubled by guilt that is not theirs." is my rephrasing of this statement "often haunted by a guilt that wasn't theirs" in the NYT article. I think it is crucial I think my rewrite captures the essence of what the reviewer is trying to say without directly quoting him. If you think there is a better way to capture his meaning, I would by happy to redo the sentence. I also added the source right after the question in the article. The hook is phrased a bit awkwardly, so what do you think about ALT1 below?
ALT1: * ... that the documentary film We Were So Beloved asks, in the aftermath of the the Holocaust, whether survival is an end in itself?
I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. I'm happy with the NYT issue now. And I much prefer ALT1, so I will strike the original, just to avoid the wrong hook getting promoted. I'm also unlinking "documentary film" as this is a familiar enough concept and linking to it reduces the impact of the article title which follows right afterwards. Edwardx (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from prep as much of the article errs on the side of WP:PARAPHRASE in my estimation, at least from source 1 (The NYT review). I would like to see a little more effort going into original prose. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @User:Gatoclass, do you have any examples to back this up? I ran a duplication analysis [24] between the two articles and other then direct quote and statements of fact, where are the issues?I am One of Many (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Arthur Harper (trader)

  • ... that Arthur Harper is noted as the first man to enter the Yukon country seeking gold?
  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Rosiestep (talk), Parkwells (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used in general. But the hook's claim that he "is credited as the first European to enter the area for gold" is stated in the article, but it is not supported by any references. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. Here's ALT1, a direct quote from the Hudson Stuck (1917) source: *ALT1: ... that Arthur Harper was "the first man who ever came to the Yukon country seeking gold"? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That may be a quote from the book, but it is not referenced anywhere near the claim used in the hook. In fact, there is no reference in that whole paragraph. The URL supplied for that book does not allow me to view the contents of the book, so I cannot search it to find the reference for myself. If you add that reference, complete with which page number it comes from, then I don't see any other problems. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Surat City Bus

Created by Rsrikanth05 (talk). Self nominated at 18:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

Émilie Fortin Tremblay

Created by Rosiestep (talk). Self nominated at 15:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • First edit to the article was on June 29, and the largest section is the biography with good inline citations and appears to be long enough. I don't have copies of the references handy so I can't check for paraphrasing. Hook has an inline citation to a website written in French, but I wonder if other readers will get the same impression from this hook as I did that she had a rooftop garden (which itself doesn't seem all that remarkable without additional details). Slambo (Speak) 22:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hans Baluschek

City of Workers (German title: Arbeiterstadt) — A glimpse of the working-class environment in Berlin by Hans Baluschek, 1920.

  • ... that despite his socialist convictions, German Art Nouveau painter Hans Baluschek at the age of 46 patriotically volunteered for the German Army in World War I?

5x expanded by Sca (talk). Nominated by Hafspajen (talk) at 17:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT2: ... that despite his socialist convictions, German Art Nouveau painter Hans Baluschek patriotically volunteered to join the German Army in World War I at age 46 ?



Symbol question.svg 5x, 16KB, references in German/offline. AGF on copyvio. Rejecting ALT4, not in article. The image has the URAA issue so is copyrighted in US; don't know if it can featured on main page then. A cropped version of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09720, Hans Baluschek.jpg can be used. QPQ not needed. ALT3 is good (Striking ALT1 same fact). Rejecting original as 1. "age of 46" is not in article 2. No inline ref (a ref at the end of para may be supporting the fact). 3. "patriotically" seems a POV. Sca, Hafspajen; please change the image or remove it; so I put a tick.Redtigerxyz Talk 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC) __

  • OPS - didn't got any ping.Hafspajen (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose using File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09720, Hans Baluschek.jpg. That was NOT nominated, and the hook is about his pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The hook is about HIS PICTURES, the other alt picture can be used or an other PICTURE as well, I suggest the alternative picture, the very one in the nomination here. ->Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hans Baluschek - Arbeiterstadt (1920).jpg Hafspajen (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Other alternative works that look good at a small size <gallery widths="100px" heights="100px" perrow="5" caption="Selected works""> File:Hans Baluschek Bahnhofshalle.jpg|''Railway Station'', 1929 File:Baluschek Kälte.jpg|''Cold'', 1917 File:Hans Baluschek Anfahrender Schnellzug 1909.jpg|''Express Train'', 1909 </gallery>

Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 with image is passed. The image is a FPC. Recommended as the first hook with picture. Removing all other images to avoid confusion. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:14, 11 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 [25], 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)







Articles created/expanded on June 30[edit]

William H. Herriman

Brooklyn Museum - Shepherd Tending His Flock - Jean-François Millet

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC).


Maitland Armstrong

Maitland Armstrong

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 19:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Alt1 ... that the grandfathers of Maitland Armstrong (pictured) and his wife both fought at the Battle of Yorktown, but on opposite sides? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    His wife fought against his grandfathers? Go, girl! I think to make it clear you'd need to spell it out more.
Alt2 ... that the grandfather of Maitland Armstrong (pictured) and the grandfather of his wife fought on opposite sides at the Battle of Yorktown?
Alt3 ... that Maitland Armstrong's (pictured) grandfather fought against his wife's grandfather at the Battle of Yorktown?
Alt3 is only true in the general "sides" sense (not the hand-to-hand sense) and has the unfortunate possessive 's before (pictured) but I think if the picture was lost this would be the more hooky of the hooks. Belle (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt4 ... that Maitland Armstrong (pictured) and his wife each had a grandfather who fought at Battle of Yorktown, though on opposite sides? EEng (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)



Red Blooded Woman

Improved to Good Article status by WonderBoy1998 (talk). Self nominated at 07:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough (promoted 3 July), long enough, fully referenced. User has three DYK credits, so no QPQ required. ALT hook okay. For main hook, the source refers to a Dead or Alive reference but does not say what it is.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I think we should go with the ALT hook? In the article, I have added a reference to the liner notes of the CD single (They have the lyrics) to verify the line "You got me spinning round, round, round, round like a record." --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg The kids are probably wondering how a record can be spinning. Good to go with ALT1. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Jacek i Agatka

  • ... that the Polish children's television series Jacek i Agatka is the namesake of many kindergartens in Poland?
  • Comment: The hook's fact can be found in some news articles, websites, and books, including the adjacent three inline citations of this fact in the article.

Created by TheGGoose (talk). Self nominated at 16:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

  • @TheGGoose: May be it is my English, the kindergartens are namesakes of the show, not vice versa. The hook must make it clear that the kindergartens were named after the show, and not the show was named because there were numerous kindergartens with this name. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Either I misused the word "namesake," or there is another problem. British English defines "namesake" as other objects/people/places with the same name, no matter who obtains it first. In my native American English, "namesake" refers to the original name bearer. Maybe the hook has to be revised for all varieties of English? TheGGoose (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well, I consulted dictionary.com before jumping in with my English. It seems it does not cover your American English. Neither wiktionary. Yes, "person with the same name as another" is the second meaning listed, but in our case it is important who named why. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT: ... that many kindergartens in Poland were named after the children's television series Jacek i Agatka? TheGGoose (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, much clearer for all varieties of both language and speakers. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I notice a lack of a message for the criteria check in this DYK nomination. Would someone like to assess the criteria on this nomination? TheGGoose (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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 for 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)



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)



Royal intermarriage

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Sotakeit (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 23:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • I am sure many (lest I say most) do know that. Could you suggest a "hookier" hook? Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Or ALT2:... that the Habsburgs adhered to the policy of royal intermarriage so much that they made it their motto, but later came to suffer from consequences of severe inbreeding? People are intrigued by incest. Just ask HBO. Surtsicna (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for comments and for providing alternative hooks. I labeled and slightly reformatted the alt hooks. Regarding the original hook, I am not convinced that this is common knowledge to everybody (to experts though, yes obviously). Oceanh (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


100 prisoners problem

Cycles in a permutation

Created by Quartl (talk). Self nominated at 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article was created 30 June; it's a good long prose translation from German; it meets core policies; hook is formatted correctly but I would make adjustments; I would give it a pass on hook content because the hook is a colloquial wikilinked paraphrase of the last cited sentence of Optimality, "the cycle-following strategy has to be optimal"; looks like Quartl's first nomination; image meets criteria.
  • I am adding "in recreational mathematics," after "problem" and "(pictured)" after "circles".
  • I noticed this previously in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics#Recreational mathematics where another source appears; I will move that to the talkpage. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The new hook is fine with me, but the three "in"s in one sentence read a bit awkward. Maybe the "in recreational mathematics" is not really necessary. --Quartl (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd leave the picture out: although clear at this resolution, it is not very exciting; it doesn't illustrate "running in circles" or "circles" as the indicated in the hook; and the hook is more intriguing without it. Belle (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I've also left a query on the talk page (it's too long to go into here and when you tell me I'm stupid I don't want the DYK folk to see it and laugh) Belle (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The query on the talk page has been resolved. Dropping the picture is fine with me. The ALT1 teaser looks good. --Quartl (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Might have a bit more intrigue as

EEng (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I'd prefer to have the word "problem" included in the hook, otherwise it's too misleading. --Quartl (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I leave the decision to you, but no one's gonna sue you for misleading them, and if we can trick a few readers into glancing at an article on graph theory, why not? EEng (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the ALT1 teaser is misleading enough :-). --Quartl (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Repeating the tick, striking ALT2 and ALT0. I'd promote it myself but I still don't understand images. EEng (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've returned this from prep. Sorry, but when a hook says "running in circles" can solve the problem, one should be able to find the relevant part of the article by searching for either "run" or "circle", neither of which appear in the article. I guess I could verify this some other way, but it does a disservice to the readership to effectively hide the relevant content like this. I suggest either the article be tweaked to conform with the hook, or vice versa. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The "running in circles" refers to the cycle-following strategy mentioned in several places in the article. Like the first reviewer above said, it's a colloquial wikilinked paraphrase of the term. --Quartl (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
So why can't you put the "colloquial term" somewhere in the article? Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the article, I would prefer to use the more technical term. Many other articles on the subject, such as cyclic permutation or cycle notation refer to cycles as being "circular", so the transcription certainly isn't misleading. --Quartl (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to use the colloquial term in the article, I suggest you use the technical term in the hook so the two conform with one another. Readers should not be left to guess that "running in circles" means a mathematical cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well that's what the wikilink in the hook is for. But I mentioned 'circular' in the article as requested. I also changed the wikilink in the hook to point to an article where 'cyclic' and 'circular' are mentioned as being the same and 'circle' is also mentioned. --Quartl (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought, but maybe the hook could say that the prisoners "cycle around" or "regular cycling improves their chances of survival" or something? EEng (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
We could even have them cycling in circles, but the cycling analogy is probably a bit too far fetched. --Quartl (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they could cycle in their drawers [26] or cycle while looking in their drawers? There are a lot of winking possibilities here. EEng (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
... that 100 prisoners improve their chances of survival by cycling their drawers? – nope, definitely doesn't work out... --Quartl (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Dammit, every good problem like this has a catchy story involving prisoners, doors/drawers, and executions. Why isn't this coming together? Can we work in a goat, or a tiger somehow? EEng (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that EEng mentions it, I think "cycling" by itself probably would work. ie:
*ALT3: ... that in the 100 prisoners problem in recreational mathematics, the prisoners improve their chances of survival by cycling (pictured)? Gatoclass (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If you go for that one, don't use the picture as it removes any "hook" from the hook. (Reader: Cycling? Like the Tour de France? Really? I'm intrigued. DYK: No, like the dry sequencing diagram on the right. [Reader yawns]) Belle (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the picture. But if you're now ready to accept 'cycling' in the hook you could as well accept 'running in circles' which I believe to be more subtle. But it's your choice. --Quartl (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
EEng suggested I look at this. How about
It has the same flavor of the original hook but without the wrongness of calling these things circles? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, would be fine with me as well. --Quartl (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I already altered ALT0 so here goes again. EEng is right; Monty Hall and the goat, which are in the article, give more bang for the buck:
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No picture. This is the sort of thing the puzzle is about, and this form is much easier than to say (as in the original form) the real surprise, which is that .5^100 can be converted cagily into 1-ln2. I think someone should pick and close. Frieda Beamy (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Monty Hall and the goat are already in the article??? I did not know that! -- totally made that up! I'm a hook-writing idiot savant! EEng (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Now we're cookin' with gas!

Note I delinked game show (feel free to relink if y'all feel that's better) and changed the link behind goat to booby prize. We could also drop two or incommunicado or both, according to taste.

That should get clicks. Why, with luck this article could become the subject of a big Arbcom case. EEng (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We've got it! Booby prize is the link I was looking for, and incommunicado is the word. I still like "to correlate success" but you're even swaying me on that point. Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me say that I have a degree in applied mathematics and statistics but have no idea what "correlate success" means. EEng (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but the game show is quite different from the original and just a minor point in the article. If ALT1 is not accepted, just replace running in circles by following cycles as suggested by David Eppstein above:

This formulation is covered in the article and fine with me. --Quartl (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it should be your choice in the end, but let me just say this. Regardless of how small a place they have in the article, Monty Hall + goat are guaranteed to get you a zillion clicks. In the hook business there's no shame in pandering, so I suggest you pander. EEng (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know what's the allowed amount of catchyness here. You guys and gals have much more experience than me, so I leave it all up to you. --Quartl (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Tropical Depression One (1979)

Created by 12george1 (talk). Self nominated at 03:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length OK, new enough, neutral, no plagiarism or copyvio detected. The only problem is with the hook, so this should be OK for DYK once that is sorted out. The town was not submerged (completely underwater) for six months. The "six months" part of the hook fact is not cited immediately after the sentence in the article either.
ALT ... that flooding in New Market, caused by a tropical depression over Jamaica in 1979, had not fully subsided after six months? Belle (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I will settle for that ALT hook.--12george1 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to add a citation directly following the "six months" bit to comply with the DYK rules and then we can light a fire, spell out HELP in pebbles on the beach and try to draw somebody else's attention to this nom to give it the tick (I've lost my powers by proposing the ALT; ALTs are the kryptonite of the DYK reviewer). Belle (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I fixed it.--12george1 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Now, hide in the ditch while I try to flag down one of the passing reviewers by flashing them a glimpse of stocking (there's probably a template for getting another reviewer's attention but I don't know the code) Belle (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 1[edit]

Sy Sutcliffe

  • ... that catcher Sy Sutcliffe, who reportedly "threw like a catapult", died from Bright's disease four months after his final major league game?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This fivefold expansion is new enough and long enough. Although part of the hook is sourced to an offline publication, I was able to verify that bit from another citation. QPQ has been done and I observed no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Astronomical Society of New South Wales

  • Comment: Article created in my userspace over weeks, moved to mainspace on July 1.

Created by Gronk Oz (talk). Self nominated at 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Clear, structured article was nominated within 7 days of its appearance in mainspace. The number given in the hook takes a moment to sum up from the tallies of the three observers but seems to be supported by cites. Length is fine and the pictures seem OK for CC. QPQ is satisfied. It is good to go. TSRL (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this from prep as I cannot verify the number of objects declared in the hook. Nowhere in the article does it state a total, the reader is apparently supposed to aggregate the totals made by the three different astronomers himself but the sources do not appear to support the text, particularly with regard to McNaught but also with Garradd. I wasted a lot of time trying to verify this article which the original reviewer passed with the comment "seems to be supported by cites." Either it is or it isn't, "seems" isn't good enough. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply: I apologize for the difficulty you experienced in reconciling the number in the DYK hook to the article and the sources. To try to rectify this, I have updated the article with a better reference for McNaught's discoveries, which clearly list 72 asteroids and comets from NASA's own records (which is slightly more than my previous reference). However, I realize there is still no summary which gives the single total. I tried to add a table here but I can't get it to display in this template, so the numbers are as follows (updated with the more current McNaught reference):
  • Comets: Evans(1) McNaught(71) Garrard(16) Total=88
  • Asteroids: McNaught(1) Garrard(1) Total=2
  • Novae: Evans(40) Garrard(4) Total=44
So the grand total is now 134. However, I am not sure whether such a table would add much to the article itself, other than simplifying comparison to the hook. Is that worth adding in this case? --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to add a table, in fact I'd advise against it. But a sentence summarizing the totals found by these three members, with all the appropriate cites at the end of it, would be very helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I could add something like this at the start of that section, though to me it reads a bit awkward (especially Garradd's novae since I can only find individual primary references for each of those). With or without those, it easily supports the hook.
  • Three members of the Society have particularly notable discoveries: Robert Evans (42 supernovae, 1 comet),<ref name="The Age 10 Jan 2009"> Robert McNaught (72 comets and asteroids),<ref name=JPL_McNaught> and Gordon Garradd (16 comets, 4 novae) <ref name=JPL_Garradd> <ref name=SN2008jb> <ref name=SN2011id> <ref name=SN2011jn> <ref name=SN2010go > (Note that I have removed the actual Reference tags here, since they were causing Reflist errors on this page.)

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

  • All you need to do is repeat more or less what is said in the hook, something like: Three members of the society have collectively discovered over 120 comets, asteroids, and novae.[cites here]. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done It is immediately under the heading "Notable members' achievements. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The second reference only lists astronomical object named "McNaught", it doesn't say these are all objects discovered by this particular McNaught (indeed the first reference names a different discoverer). Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Wow, I learn something every day. I have seen that source used as a reference many times and accepted it, but you are quite right. Thanks for pointing that out. The good news is that when I found a reliable source (International Astronomical Union) which is definitely by discoverer, the numbers were much higher, especially for McNaught. The only down side is that the reader needs to scroll down that list (or search it) to find the individual discoverer's total. So I have changed the hook from "over 120" to "over 500", used the IAU reference on that lead sentence, and expanded the wording to distinguish the number discovered from the number named after the person. I hope this is satisfactory now ... let me know! --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Well done! I'm pleased I made the effort to pursue this issue now. Original hook verified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your persistence and help, Gatoclass; this was my first time through the DYK process, so if I do it again I will be able to make it much smoother for everybody involved! --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I am concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "Eleven years after that grand opening in 1959, the clubhouse was demolished. Coinciding with that event was Gordon Patston's success in being awarded a Churchill Fellowship to study aeronautical engineering in England" with "Eleven years after that grand and happy opening in 1959, the clubhouse was demolished. Coinciding with that traumatic event was Gordon’s success in being awarded a Churchill Fellowship to study aeronautical engineering in England". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done You're quite right, Nikkimaria - I kept meaning to go back and fix up that and a few other areas, but in the end it slipped my mind. I think you will find it is better now. Thanks for bearing with me on this. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Stratum (album)

Vocalist Sven-Erik Lind, 2008, dressed in 20th-century military regalia

  • ... 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.


Mukhalinga

Four-faced mukhalinga

  • ... that the four-faced linga (pictured) may be called the "linga with five faces"?

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 16:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC).



Arthur Adams (comics)

Arthur Adams

  • ... that among the early works of Arthur Adams (pictured) was the miniseries Longshot; first issue published with a cover date of September 1985?
  • Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Nightscream (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 22:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Promoted to GA on 1 July. Neutral. I can't see any plagiarism or copyvio on a brief run through The image is fine though at this size it is just "generic man" so I wouldn't use it unless there are no more interesting pictures for the set. The hook is about as dull as possible.
  • ALT1 ... that the first published work of Arthur Adams (pictured) was a "Farrah Foxette" pinup that he copied from Farrah Fawcett's iconic 1976 swimsuit poster?
  • ALT2 ... that Arthur Adams (pictured) spent two years drawing the six issues of Longshot and his artwork was called the miniseries' "one major saving grace"? Belle (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)




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).


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 several 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)

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)


Olivia Pope

  • ... that Olivia Pope is the only main protagonist role played by an African-American woman on American network television since 1974?

Improved to Good Article status by TonyTheTiger (talk). Nominated by MJ94 (talk) at 20:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Good article status granted on 7/2/14. Article is long enough. The article contains extensive in-line citations. The hook is short enough and would be interesting enough as well if it were true and supported by the source. However, the cited source doesn't say what the hook says. Instead, it says "she is only the second black woman in almost 40 years to lead a network television drama." (That is, it omits all genres other than comedy and says that there was at least one other African-American to play the lead in a drama.) Moreover, the hook isn't factually accurate, since the show "Get Christie Love" starring Teresa Graves aired new episodes until at least April 1975. See episodes here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Other examples that prove the hook to be false include (1) 227 starring Marla Gibbs (on NBC til 1990), (2) A Different World starring Lisa Bonet (on NBC til 1993), (3) Fame starring Debbie Allen (on NBC til 1987), (4) Moesha starring Brandy (aired on UPN network 1996-2001), (5) Girlfriends starring Tracee Ellis Ross (aired on UPN and CW networks 2000-2008), and (6) Soul Food starring Nicole Ari Parker (aired 2000-2004 on Showtime). Cbl62 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, the original DYK nomination on the article can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Olivia Pope. Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • MJ94 thanks for nominating this. I'll try to help this nomination out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It looks like both refs 5 and 6 point to this as the first dramatic AA main protagonist role since 1974. I only watched one of the shows above and don't know whether the others were comedy or drama. Is there a challenge to the facts in the source or just my misrepresentation of it in the article that made it here in hook form.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The challenge is two-fold: (1) the sources don't support the hook, and (2) the hook fact is false. Cbl62 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I quite the latter two facts (especially ALT3 – I think it reads better) as they seem to be more clear cut than my original suggestion or ALT3. MJ94 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg alt 1 is somewhat better since it is limited to "dramas"; the original hook wasn't so limited. But it's clear that Get Christie Love (as noted above) aired until the spring of 1975, which is enough to render alt 1 false. Further, Fame is described as a mixture of drama and music, and its main protagonist was an African-American woman, Debbie Allen. So, alt 1 really doesn't work either. I'll take a look at alts 2 and 3 as soon as time permits. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that your objection is WP:OR. I never watched Fame and with all due respect to Ms. Allen, I have no reason to believe it was not an ensemble cast. I think we should go with WP:TRUTH on the cited fact here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)



Shrenik Kasturbhai Lalbhai

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


Quaid-e-Azam tourist lodge, Barsala

Created by Faizan (talk). Self nominated at 07:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article presently has only 946 characters of readable prose size. It needs at least 554 more characters to fulfill the length criteria.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue has been addressed, the article has 1682 characters now. Faizan 14:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg A complete review is needed. Faizan 06:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svgSymbol redirect vote 4.svg (My first review; experienced reviewers requested) This article is very short, but does meet the minimum requirement for characters now. At first I thought it to be a stub, but it has the required length and according to The "Croughton-London" rule a small article can be sufficient for a simple subject. The hook is acceptable and the map is appropriate for this location. A proper image would improve the article. (update: OP reports that no image is available.) One sentence "The particular chair is still present in this lodge on which Mohammad Ali Jinnah was seated." is almost identical to that used on this page "That particular chair is still present in this lodge on which Quaid was seated." The OP should re-word to avoid plagiarism conflict. Kyle(talk) 17:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Tried to paraphrase to: "Jinnah was seated on a chair and that chair is still preserved and is present in the lodge." Is this version OK? Faizan 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg I like the changes. After the improvement, everything looks ok to me. My primary concern with this article is notability. The limited references are mostly advertisement and tourism related. This article seems to lean on a relationship with the founder - but according to rules for notability a relationship with a notable person is not sufficient grounds for notability. "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." In this case the details in this article may be more suitable for addition to an article about the town or region instead. I would like to see other editors comments after a full review. Kyle(talk) 04:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The lodge is not merely notable because of its relation with the founder of Pakistan, but it has been named as the "Cultural Heritage Site in Azad Kashmir", because of this relationship. The heritage site, like rest of the Pakistani sites remains neglected and uncovered by media, etc. So I had to rely on mostly tourism sources. It is a heritage site, not an organization. So you are saying that you are not going to let it go and we should go after other reviewers? I understand because this is your first review, but you ought to decide. Otherwise we can get a question mark inviting others. Faizan 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please return to your first reference and look at it carefully. Does it clearly cite "Cultural Heritage Site in Azad Kashmir?" I have opened and read the references looking for this citation. Can you help me clarify this please? Kyle(talk) 15:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Checking in. Please clarify the citation for "Cultural Heritage Site in Azad Kashmir" so I can green check mark your entry! I want to help you get this completed ASAP. Kyle(talk) 00:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kyle, I asked it on the concerned talk page, and will quote Samar's note on this:

I hope that this answered your question? Faizan 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I removed this term from the article and there is no mention of cultural heritage significance in hook, so it will not be affected. Faizan 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
More reviewers needed. I was very happy to hear about a possible citation for "Cultural Heritage Site in Azad Kashmir", for this would clear up the question about notability. Now that this citation has not been found and the information removed from the article-our concerns about notability remain. Please add citations to improve the notability status for this article. At this point most of the citations are related to tourism and I fear the article is approaching spam status (core policy violation.) I want to help and I have searched for additional references myself but have failed to find any suitable for addition. Kyle(talk) 15:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Another review needed. Faizan 15:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg I am approving this based upon precedence. You will find on todays DYK, the following article: Trout_Inn,_Lechlade. This article is in most respects identical in tourism content and notability to the article under review. I am approving the DYK based upon the Trout Inn example. I have continued to solicit alternate reviewers without success. Hopefully this approval will conclude the initial round of discussion and promote additional eyes on the subject. Kyle(talk) 23:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on July 3[edit]

Old Tagalog

Created by Philipandrew (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New (3rd), long enough (though not very long), neutral as much as I'm familiar, unable to check for copyvio in offline sources, no QPQ necessary as not a self-nom. Hook doesn't have an immediate ref in article (see 3b). And two paragraphs are missing citations. Also it wouldn't hurt to add a book or article or two that use the phrase "old tagalog" for notability's sake. I didn't find much on the subject in Google, Google Books, or JSTOR. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  08:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim Donnelly (baseball)

Old Judge baseball card of Donnelly

  • ... that The Sporting Life wrote in 1896 that a "prettier or headier fielder" than the Orioles' third baseman Jim Donnelly (pictured) "would be difficult to find"?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 20:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC).




Golgota Picnic

  • ... that the play Golgota Picnic has led to numerous protests by conservative Christian groups in France and Poland?

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 15:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This one should be acceptable.--12george1 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg What did you check in the review? DYK review instructions please begin with one of the 6 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYKReviewing guide — Maile (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Like nobody else did that. You should remind them too.--12george1 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Never mind. I basically looked through all of the article. The source backing up the hook is reliable, which is probably the most important thing. It definitely looks like the article was 5-fold expanded. So that's my rationale.--12george1 (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

East Branch Chillisquaque Creek

East Branch Chillisquaque Creek looking upstream in Madison Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 22:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Date, length, sourcing and hook all check out. Took me a little while working out how the 161 figure was reached but I got there eventually! Mattythewhite (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pulled, it shouldn't take our readers any time to work out how to get to 161. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT1. (Original hook has been struck.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)



Vennen

  • ... that the offices of the Danish magazine Vennen were raided by police in the so-called "Great Porno Affair"?
  • Reviewed: 1908 FA Charity Shield
  • Comment: I will be away until 12 July so probably won't be able to respond to any issues until then (but hopefully there are none).

Created by 97198 (talk). Self nominated at 15:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough (created July 3) and just long enough (about 1600 characters). The prose is neutral. The hook is interesting. The article is well-cited but I've encountered some sourcing problems:
  • Routledge has no information about Axgil assuming the editorship in 1952. Who's Who has him assuming the editorship in 1954.
  • Who's Who's entry on Elmer says Vennen ceased publication in 1970. This may be a misprint, as it goes on to say that he coordinated the Vennen Activist Group until 1974, and that said group owned the magazine. Routledge gives the date as 1974.
  • Besides these issues I think we're good to go. QPQ checks out. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on July 4[edit]

Hammond House (Hawthorne, New York)

East view of house, 2013

5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self nominated at 19:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC).


Art Whitney

  • Reviewed: pending

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 21:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC).


Mike McGeary

McGear, c. 1874, from The A.G. Spalding Baseball Collection

  • ... that 19th century baseball player Mike McGeary (pictured) was suspected of game-fixing and using a yellow umbrella to communicate with gamblers in the stands?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 21:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC).



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).




Typhoon Nabi

  • ... that Typhoon Nabi dropped 1,322 millimetres (52.0 in) of rainfall, which caused $854 million USD of damage?

Improved to Good Article status by Hurricanehink (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

  • I'm not a fan of ALT2, as the Saffir-Simpson scale isn't official in that basin. Also, ALT1 is pretty redundant by saying Nabi twice. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT3:... that during Typhoon Nabi, there were 61 daily rainfall records broken? Thanks, Matty.007 15:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

2005 FA Community Shield

Improved to Good Article status by Lemonade51 (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 14:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Recently became a GA and it is a "readable prose size". ALT1 is much more better. The only thing is needed a QPQ. FairyTailRocks 21:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding the article text for ALT1 "The defeat for Arsenal somewhat assured Wenger "[It] is not too important... " - not sure assured is the right word here. starship.paint "YES!" 13:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed. No QPQ needed as not a self nom. Thanks, Matty.007 13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This review is incomplete, and needs to address the actual criteria: that the hook is supported both in the article and in the sourcing, and that the source citations are made by the end of the sentence in which the information occurs, and that the article is neutral, each paragraph is sourced, and there is no close paraphrasing or similar issues. DYK reviews are independent of GA reviews, so the latter cannot be reused in the former. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)



Hurricane Arthur

Created by TheAustinMan (talk). Nominated by 12george1 (talk) at 18:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Sorry, but the hook makes no sense. What can that possibly mean? Are there times a hurricane can strike outside of a calendar year -- some kind of extracalary days or something? EEng (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It means that the hurricane struck NC earlier in the year than any other known storm. Agree that the hook needs to be reworked, but I'm not sure how to do it; everybody seems to have their own opinion of how this exact type of thing should be presented. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think I figured it out. Are you saying

It's subtle, but believe it or not "the calendar year" is way different from a calendar year. I know it seems backwards but the is right for what you mean. Also, we don't normally explain that a US state is a US state. EEng (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lindon Meikle

Lindon Meikle

5x expanded by Mattythewhite (talk). Self nominated at 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on July 5[edit]

John Crittle

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self nominated at 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

Freddie Hornik

Created by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

Ned Hanlon (baseball)

Tomlinson Studio photo of Ned Hanlon Tomlinson, 1887

  • ... that "Foxy Ned" Hanlon (pictured) has been called "The Father of Modern Baseball," for inventing and perfecting the "inside baseball" strategy, including the "Baltimore chop"?

5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC).


Lena Nyadbi

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

Created by Bilby (talk), 124.178.150.205 (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. 80.232.249.244 (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)


A Voice in the Dark (comic)

  • ... that disabled artist Larime Taylor draws the comic book series A Voice in the Dark using only his mouth and a Wacom Cintiq tablet while his legally blind wife colors the cover art?
  • ALT1:... that disabled artist Larime Taylor draws the comic book series A Voice in the Dark using only his mouth and a Wacom Cintiq tablet?
  • Comment: I've made two versions of the nomination and included the image for the volume cover. I'm good with either hook and I'm OK if it's listed without the image, but I think that using the image would be more effective, given that the artist draws it with his mouth.

Created by Tokyogirl79 (talk). Self nominated at 10:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Note: non-free image removed. It won't be allowed on the main page and it's probably not even supposed to be displayed on this page. Sorry! (Also, bolded hook article.) BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Parental Advisory

Improved to Good Article status by WikiRedactor (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article received good article status on July 5 and is long enough, well-cited with in-line citations. Hook is interesting enough and short enough. Unfortunately, the article doesn't contain the hook fact. Indeed, the article seems to suggest that the tag was created in 1990, not 1985. The article states: "In 1990, a black-and-white warning label reading "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" was introduced as a standard for affected records ..." Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry. my mistake. Alt 1: that the Parental Advisory tag was first used online in 2011, over 20 years since it began being used? Thanks, Matty.007 17:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg The alt 1 hook works. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This was promoted with the original hook, despite the issues raised, and the ALT1 hook is not supported by the Guardian source given, which is talking about the BPI (British system, not the American one which created the labels), and says that "parental warning logos are set to be introduced", but not when; furthermore, BPI was updating its warning scheme at the time. The article doesn't comment on whether any US sites might have previously introduced the online use of the logos, and does say that iTunes has a warning system in place on its content, but doesn't say when it was implemented nor whether it uses "Parental Advisory" in any form. This is going to need a new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My apologies. Alt 2: that the Parental Advisory tag was introduced in 1985? This is accurate as far as I can tell, and is backed up at the end of the explanation. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble, Matty.007 16:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Yasser Salihee

  • ... that Iraqi journalist and doctor Yasser Salihee sometimes interrupted his reporting to treat wounded civilians in Baghdad?
  • ALT1:… that journalist and doctor Yasser Salihee used some of his patients in Baghdad as sources for his news articles?
  • ALT2:… that journalist and doctor Yasser Salihee, killed during the Iraq War, sometimes interrupted his reporting to treat wounded civilians in Baghdad?

Created by Darouet (talk). Self nominated at 23:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC).


Archie Simpson

Archie Simpson

Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 18:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. Well-cited, including the interesting hook. Dup detector found no close paraphrasing or copyvio. NPOV. Image license suitable for main page. Just the QPQ to be done. Edwardx (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. Good to go. Edwardx (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)



List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes

Created by Sjones23 (talk). Self nominated at 06:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New (mainspaced on the 5th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check, no QPQ necessary (welcome to DYK!) ALT2 checks out "more faithful adaptation": more faithful than what, though? Struck main hook and ALT1 for not being hooky enough (straightforward and not particularly interesting), but I think we can do better than ALT2 too. There's nothing else in Reception or something that makes this series standout? Last sentence of first paragraph needs to be cited. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  08:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey there. The "more faithful adaptation" I'm referring to is that Crystal is more faithful to the manga than the original anime series. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 6[edit]

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)

Eddi McKee

  • Reviewed: Pom Klementieff
  • Comment: Please feel free to tweak the hook. I can also send a scan of the offline article if needed.

Moved to mainspace by JuneGloom07 (talk). Self nominated at 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

  • REVIEW started (will finish tomorrow). New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. I've added an ALT1, as I feel the last part adds nothing of substance to the hook. Hook cite is offline, but bearing in mind the quality of citation throughout, no good reason not to WP:AGF. Edwardx (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)



Harper Court

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 06:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough, long enough, uses in-line citations and is neutrally written. The hook is short enough and interesting enough (given the quick succession of option exercise and listing), and the fact is supported by in-line cited reliable sources. A QPQ needs to be completed, and the orphan issue remains open. Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Harlon Carter

Alt 1: "...that National Rifle Association leader Harlon Carter was convicted of murder as a teenager, although the conviction was overturned on appeal?"

Created by GabrielF (talk). Self nominated at 05:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg He was also later acquitted on appeal, and I think that should be included in the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I've added an alternative. GabrielF (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I think that the article could be improved to meet DYK standards, but it's not there yet. This review examines the article as of 22:47, 7 July 2014
Good points first.
  1. Article is new (created 7 July)
  2. Long enough: 3260 B (509 words) "readable prose size"
  3. Neutral: appears to be broadly neutral in tone, but I have some concerns (see below)
  4. No BLP issues, because none of the people named in the article are living
  5. Most of the references are off line, but I have checked that the online ones are used fairly for the points they reference.
Problems:
QPQ review listed, but the review at Template:Did you know nominations/1990 Back Bay rail accident seems very cursory, and doesn't address most of the points listed at WP:WIADYK.
  1. Part of the hook fact -- that Carter was convicted of murder -- lacks a direct citation. Given the seriousness of that assertion, I suggest that every sentence in that para should be referenced to at least one reliable source.
  2. In the rest of the article, many significant points are uncited, and 4 out of 8 paragraphs are wholly unreferenced. This is inadequate of itself (see WP:DYKAR#D2) and also impedes checks for copyvio and close paraphrasing, so I can't sign off on either point.
  3. I am also uncomfortable about the inclusion of the murder-conviction-and-acquittal so close to the lede, which seems to give it undue prominence. That was a controversy which arose during his time at the Institute for Legislative Action, and should included in that part of the article.
  4. As it stands, the article includes negative points about Carter, but does not try to explain his achievements. For balance, it needs to present a more rounded view of the man.
Gun control is a hot issue in the USA, so I expect that if this article reaches the front page, it will be carefully scrutinised by protagonists on either side of current political hot potato. So it would need to very carefully referenced, and also ensure that it paints a reasonably balanced picture of Carter. So far, it doesn't do that.
I hope that the nominator will work on improving the article, and building on the research already done. If they would like me to revise my review, please {{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} so that I don't miss any response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for the thorough review.
  1. I have added more inline citations to this paragraph
  2. I've added additional inline citation throughout the article
  3. I moved the paragraph about the murder conviction further down in the article, so that it accompanies a discussion of his NRA leadership.
  4. I would dispute this fourth point. Carter's accomplishments were that he changed the mission and viewpoint of the NRA and that under his leadership the organization increased its membership and political power. I believe that I've presented Carter's viewpoints and his actions accurately - and the article is consistent with the sources.GabrielF (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of "although" in the ALT hook gives a slightly judgmental air as if we don't quite believe the the second part (not as bad as "even though" but worse than "but").
ALT2: "...that National Rifle Association leader Harlon Carter's conviction for murder as a teenager was overturned on appeal?" Belle (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd skip the teenage bit

ALT3: "...that the murder conviction of National Rifle Association leader Harlon Carter was overturned on appeal?"

EEng (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Thanks for the reworking, GabrielF. That's a big improvement, and we are nearly there.
AFAICS, the references support the assertions in the article, and there is no copyvio close paraphrasing. (I have to AGF on the offline sources, but they are not critical).
Moving the murder further down the article significantly alters its balance, which is good. However, there are a few outstanding points:
  1. The para 2 assertion about him joining the Border Patrol in 1935 didn't seem to be supported by that para's reference to Lambert, which referred to him leaving in 1970 "after 34 years with the Government". That implies a 1936 joining, which is specifically asserted by Crewson, so I amended the date and added a ref to Crewson. How does that look to you?
  2. Lambert asserts that Carter was a graduate of the University of Texas and Emory Law School. I suggest that this should be included in the article, because the fact of having 2 degrees places him a different light to just being a border cop. What do you think?
  3. Should the lede para be expanded with a sentence summarising his career as you did in point #4 above?
Again, please {{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} in any reply so that I don't miss it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


RY Sagittarii

  • ... that the star RY Sagittarii is periodically dimmed by clouds of carbon dust, most likely ejected from the star itself?

5x expanded by Casliber (talk). Self nominated at 14:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm having trouble verifying some of these astronomical object nominations. Where is the ref which confirms that RY Sagittarii is an R Coronae Borealis type star? That should be cited at the top of the article behind the statement. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Added now - SIMBAD mentions it. also footnotes 4 and 7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 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)


1990 Back Bay rail accident

Created by Mackensen (talk). Self nominated at 01:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article was created within five days is more than long enough. Hook is interesting and supported by source. Looks good to me.GabrielF (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My only concern about ALT1, and it's minor, is that it's not clear to me from the sources which train (both?) punched the hole in Dartmouth Street. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Howzabout

EEng (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Toungoo–Ava War (1538–45)

Created by Hybernator (talk). Self nominated at 23:03, 6 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).

Robban Andersson

  • ... that ....Survivor contestant Robban Andersson in 2012 got the World Record in spending most days at the Survivor Island of any other contestant in the world by spending 126 days total in the reality series?
  • ALT2 ... that .... Robban Andersson in the Survivor 2003 finale appeared in the live show painted completely in blue, he grabbed the Survivor statuette and he also ate his own vote paper containing his vote for the winner?

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Nominated by BabbaQ (talk) at 20:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC).


Lake Kuyucuk

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self nominated at 16:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Size and dates are fine. The image has acceptable copyright tags. Content is neutral and cites references; it has some very short paragraphs of 1 or 2 lines, and sections of a single paragraph, but that may be fixed in the future and it's not a problem for the DYK nomination. Cambalachero (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Chlemoutsi

Chlemoutsi castle from the sea

  • ... 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).



Walter Jones (Irish politician)

Created by BrownHairedGirl (talk). Self nominated at 00:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg The article is new and long enough, uses in-line citations and appears neutral. Spot-checking reveals no problems with unduly close paraphrasing, copyright violations or plagiarism. All three hooks are short enough, interesting (alt 1 best in my opinion) and verified with in-line citations to reliable sources, although of the sources requires a subscription, and AGF applies to that one. QPQ fulfilled. Cbl62 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Cbl62. I'd be happy with any of the hooks, but I would probably rank them in descending order as listed. The illegitimate-nephew angle has a legitimate place as a reflection of the social mores of the time, but it is a little tabloid. OTOH, the main hook plugs into a v popular 19th-century novelist, whose works are still widely-read and televised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The Last Chronicle of Barset is on my ambitious reading list for this summer. Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Raphinae

Dodo

  • ... 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)


Museum de Fundatie

The blute-fin mill (1886) by Vincent van Gogh

  • Technical requirements: At about 1800 words it is long enough, started and nominated on 7 July, so certainly new enough; Editør does not show up in the QPQ list, so no quid pro quo reviewing requirement... The article is written neutrally. The hook is formally not fully cited, as the article refers only to the French article (Le Blute-Fin Mill), as do the other sources I could find... The article furthermore does not explicitly mention that it was the Van Gogh museum doing the authentication, so it will need an additional source after hook saying just that. Further more, there are several paintings called "Le Blute-Fin mill", so maybe "the 1886 Van Gogh painting" should become "a 1886 Van Gogh painting". Finally, the hook can be shortened by removing "in Zwolle", as otherwise there is a bit too much of tangentially related info in...
  • Regarding the article, there are some smaller uncited details. "Fundatie" is not a very usual Dutch word (fundering is), and is normally not translated in English-language sources, so I suggest to leave it out. The date of establishment is cited to a consulting agency's website (here), although its author seems to have some standing. The addresses cited in the infobox seem not necessary, as we are not a guidebook...
  • Images are ok (added an extra tag for [File:Isaac Israels - Woman before Sunflowers by van Gogh, 1917.JPG this one].
  • If the issues are solved, it looks good to go! L.tak (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Created by Editør (talk). Self nominated at 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC).


Cudgel War

  • Did you know that the Cudgel War was the largest peasant rebellion ever to occur in Finland?
  • ALT1:Did you know 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).

Weib, was weinest du

Mary of Magdla recognizing Jesus, Workshop of Peter Paul Rubens

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 14:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough. Long enough (just). NPOV. QPQ done. Well-cited, including the hook. Image suitably licensed for front page. No close paraphrasing or copyvios found. Good to go. Edwardx (talk) 00:00, 12 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' [27], 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)


Neptunium

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)

Articles created/expanded on July 8[edit]

Juan Puig

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

Three Beauties of the Present Day

Three Beauties of the Present Day

Created by Curly Turkey (talk). Nominated by Hafspajen (talk) at 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

  • The article is new enough (was nominated within five days of creation), long enough (4300 characters readable prose), well-sourced (offline sources seem reliable). No copyvio as done on two spot checks. As this is not a self-nom no QPQ is required. Hook is cited ("pioneered and was strongly associated with..."). I think you are Symbol confirmed.svg good to go! Raymie (tc) 22:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Added "pictured" to the hook because there is an image, but the review did not review the image and needs to (see "Other" section on the edit page here, the number 2 criteria). Raymie, you might want to take another look, and be sure to put the resulting icon at the beginning of your review where it is easily seen, not buried in the middle of a paragraph. (BTW, the "new enough" guideline was changed from five days to seven days a couple of months back.) Also fixed the DYK