Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Current (main page) (T:DYK)
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.

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.

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 January 7[edit]

Cirrus (song)

  • ... that "Cirrus" by Bonobo was recently featured in a mobile phone advert?

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC).

  • I'm starting to see some problems. Is there any other info than a critical reception of this song, anything about the song's composition, background? I'm not sure if that is a DYK requirement, though. Also the citation positioning is a little funky, and there are unneccesary ".[citation],"s going on in this article. I'd suggest copyediting if you can. 和DITOREtails 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the citation positioning and I will fix the content issue when it is shown to be a DYK requirement. The rules are, to my knowledge, that it needs to be 1,500 characters of new words, for DYK purposes they don't need to be your own but of course they have to be in quotes if they're not and quotes of more than 40 words need to be in blockquotes per WP:MOS. Feel free to correct me, though.--Launchballer 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Excluding the quotations, the article looks like this, and since we don't count quotations as article length this is ineligible for DYK. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, I'd always assumed that the quotations did count so long as they weren't above 40 words... I'm going to need a bit to expand it.--Launchballer 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Whew! Done. How's it looking now?--Launchballer 00:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The sourcing isn't always the best: House of Balloons (the quote from which has just been blockquoted) appears to be a personal music blog and thus not a WP:RS (it should probably be removed entirely, unless there's something about the site that makes it reliable sourcing); the Critical reception section remains almost entirely quoted material, and the new Music video section's second half, another critical reception section, is much the same style. There needs to be far more in your own words summarizing the reviews, and far less directly quoted material from them. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I had made adjustments, I just hadn't posted here. How is it now?--Launchballer 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, I'll be honest: when I saw you had taken the quote from the dropout site, split it in two, reversed the segments, and retained "the video" but moved it out of the quote, I stopped dead, and I haven't been able to get back to it. What you did is just not okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It took me a whole ten minutes to see anything wrong with what I had done, I kept rearranging the whole article and must've got lost. Better?--Launchballer 21:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't the exact original quote, so I've just restored it. There's also this bit about smoking LSD with the Beav—since LSD isn't smoked, there's something wrong. Once you've fixed that, I'm going to call for a new reviewer, as I want another view on the quotes vs. summarizing issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The source says 'doing acid', I've just reinstated that sentence.--Launchballer 16:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
QPQ done, by the way.--Launchballer 17:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the QPQ. Although I was going to call for another reviewer at this stage, I really have to point out that two of the reviews you summarized are now back at full-length quotes because your paraphrases either weren't accurate (i.e., smoking LSD) or just split the quote without any summarizing. The same issues affect other summaries, and it's a fundamental flaw here: "aestivate" has the exact opposite meaning of what the quote is trying to convey, the "bodily function" isn't a literal comparison and shouldn't be made to sound so, and Grishkof didn't say it was "best suited" for the rain (which means it would be less so for other things) just that it was (on a day that it was raining) "perfect for the rain". You need to retain the meaning of the text you're paraphrasing, which has not been achieved in this article. Until you can succeed in this, and also reduce your dependence on quotes, I don't see how this nomination can be approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The article now has less than 40 words of quotes in the entire article (40 if you count [and]). Having had another look at the sources, I think that's better.--Launchballer 19:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for full regular DYK review, which should also address the issues noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg What makes Jack Flynn on Vimeo a reliable source for something we are going to place on the main page? Stonerdays, which proclaims itself as a blog, does not appear to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards either, and while probably acceptable for providing critical reception on the song, it shouldn't be used to source factual information about the song unless it can be shown to meet WP:RS. Earmilk.com similarly describes itself as a blog, so needs to be shown to meet WP:RS. "Supermanipulated" simply isn't a word, and is thus clearly not encyclopaedic language. In the "Music video" section, the article states "Critical reception for the video has been positive as well.." which appears to follow on from the "Critical reception" section, despite actually appearing earlier in the article. Harrias talk 08:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Leaving a notice half way up my talk page is hardly going to grab my attention. I have attended to all issues.--Launchballer 11:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check on issues raised by Harrias above, and to complete the full regular DYK review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article has been well-formatted and has good citations. My concern would be that I don't really understand some of the text, such as "The results are complicated machines and gigantic robots" in reference to the video, and the two quotes from critics regarding the video. I'm also curious if all the reviews for the song were overwhelmingly positive or if there were actually some critical reviews, as I might expect from any musician. Mvblair (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If you check you will find that all the reviews were positive. I have simply taken out that one offending phrase The other two are simply metaphors, and really I'm not entirely sure what was intended by them either.--Launchballer 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on February 1[edit]

Amash-Conyers Amendment

  • ... that the Amash-Conyers Amendment, which sought to end bulk data collection, was defeated by a vote of 217 to 205?
  • ALT1: ... that the Amash-Conyers Amendment, opposing NSA data collection, was narrowly defeated in a vote that crossed party lines?

Created by HectorMoffet (talk). Self nominated at 08:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article is new enough, having been moved into mainspace on the day of DYK nomination. Per rule A2:"The prose portion of the article, which must be 1500 characters, excludes (in addition to categories listed in the rules) block quotes…" Due to the block quote taking up around half the article, I make the prose count just 953. This does not meet the criteria. Otherwise it is neutral and free from copyright concerns. The hook is not especially "hooky" and isn't a clear reflection of the article, lacking context. QPQ is not done, there is a comment asking for more of a review at the associated page. C679 13:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I also had concerns about notability. Most of the content was sourced to a WP:SPS, or otherwise trivial mentions. Added to the fact that the amendment failed. I think the place for this is as a merged article about the legislative efforts to reign in the NSA – perhaps merged to USA Freedom Act or to Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) or as a spinoff of thereto. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
@Cloudz679, article has been expanded to readable prose. Alternate hook text most welcome. Since I have never had an article at DYK, I was told there was no QPQ requirement, although I did my best to attempt a QPQ anyway. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg You're right, QPQ is not required in this case. I agree with Ohconfucius though, that the topic doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. One of thousands of failed bills. C679 17:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The sources in the article (e.g. [1]) support notability. Of all the bills before U.S. Congress, how many are major news in the UK? For "enduring" news coverage see [2]. For discussion of its overall historical role see [3]. But above all, note that the DYK criteria above say nothing at all about evaluating notability. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Just the hook then. C679 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps ALT1 ... that the Amash-Conyers Amendment, opposing NSA data collection, was narrowly defeated in a vote that crossed party lines? [I posted this much earlier but forgot to sign -- Wnt (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)]
The nominator is currently blocked indefinitely, so any rewrite will have to be by someone else. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nomination is also still tagged as a stub, and I see three bare-URL references, which must also be fixed before the nomination is passed. From what I can see of the indefinite block, it can be reversed at any time, so long as certain conditions are met. So the nominator could be back doing work soon, or never. It depends entirely on him. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone else addressed the stub issue, if that is an issue (it's definitely not a stub now), and I've dealt with complaints about the primary source (adding a secondary that said the same thing) and also having a category. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that the matter I raised has been dealt with satisfactorily. I have no further concerns. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There are still referencing concerns, the statement "We urge the House to reject the Amash amendment and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation" is attributed to a Guardian article, but actually is a user comment on the said article. C679 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It was sourced to the Global Post article cited at the end of the preceding sentence. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The quoting is still sub-standard, e.g. direct quotes are not immediately followed with inline citations, also citations used have actually quoted the specific content from elsewhere, e.g. fn5 is not the original source of the information. C679 07:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I just tidied it up a bit and removed some things. This is utter tosh that doesn't meet notability criteria. But that's not exactly a DYK review so I shall leave the fact that I made a small contribution here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg requesting new reviewer. C679 10:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Silly question, what for?--Launchballer 19:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on February 3[edit]

Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress

Created by Gfosankar (talk). Self nominated at 12:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date and size are fine. But there are just too many grammar errors, some sentences are missing a verb, in others the subject is not clear. The hook is probably fine, as the last few sentences mostly seem to support it, but the article needs grammar copyediting. After this is done, I'd like another reviewer to look at this and see if it reads better. Please tell us here when the grammar has been improved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I will C/e the article. Soham 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • C/e done mate. Soham 15:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid your copyedit seems to have made the article more incomprehensible. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svgLong enough, new enough. QPQ done. The article doesn't appear to be particularly neutral, with the first line in the body mentioning discrimination without sufficient NPOV or support from the references. The prose is still in need of a copyedit. Regarding the hook, p244 of the cited text doesn't seem to support it. The other reference doesn't support the first part of the hook either. C679 09:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I rewrite the section and fixed the refs. --Gfosankar (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but "pp. 244,135,130" is not acceptable referencing. If there are three different pages supporting three different facts, you should use three separate references. Please address this. C679 11:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Separate references added. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg A marked improvement. However there still seems to be an element of original research to the hook. Article's grammar is still sub-standard. C679 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Cloudz, the article is not in GAR or FAR process, it is in a DYK. In my humble opinion I think other than the hook original research issue there should not be a problem with grammar. This article uses Indian English which is different from Czech English. So I request you to consider that while reviewing. Soham 14:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Soham: I think you are being [censored(French)] unfair to Cloudz. In my humble opinion, the prose was certainly in a dialect of English – I know that only because none of the words turned red from my browser's built-in spell-checker. And which dialect could only be established from contextual clues. It would have helped if the use of prepositions in whatever [censored(French)] dialect used in the article was in line with more banal codes of English. I have done a copyedit according to my understanding of the article and its sources. Kindly vet to see that I have not made any translation errors in the course of my work. And I fail to see how [censored(French)] Czech English is relevant to the discussion. I believe Piotr is Polish, and probably would have understood Cz English. Pardon my French ;-) Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Ofc, thanks for cooperating, can you be a bit more specific as to where the prose is incomprehensible. I would definitely try to clarify it.

    Oh, Cloudz is Czech (Prague), who took over from Piotrus so I think it does have an impact on the review. Soham 15:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the biggest impact on the review is the editor(s) responsible for writing the content. In the future you would do well to Comment on content, not on the contributor. C679 17:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I would apologise for the facetiousness of my remarks above, although I don't believe they were entirely unwarranted. The problems were pointed out to you by two editors, and were manifestly present while you went on to criticise one of them saying that this is in Indian English. There is no longer a need for you to "clarify", except if I have introduced any factual errors. I've now fixed most of the problems. It seems that these may have been introduced in this series of edits, not all provided clarification or an improvement in grammar. Kindly review my changes. As I said above, I suggest that you work on your use of prepositions. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Er, no. Although Cloudz can probably say "Dobry den!" and "Na Skledanou!", I don't believe Cloudz is Czech AFAICT. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Standard English will enable the most viewers around the globe to read the article. Non-standard dialects should be treated with great caution. Tony (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Noted, Tony, Ofc I am learning the ropes from Gareth Griffith Jones, I reviewed your edits and it seems as if the problem has been solved. Oh BTW Tony1 you wrote WP:1A right? Soham 14:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • First line: "The Kingdom of Travancore, a princely state in India consisting of a majority of ethnnic Malayalees and a Tamil minority, which suffered discriminatin in education[1] and employment." no main verb; this is not a sentence. Also contains spelling mistakes. Next sentence: "Their political actions led them to form several political parties" Their used as a pronoun to refer to one of: i) The Kingdom of Travancore, ii) a Tamil minority, iii) something else. No comment on my nationality per WP:PRIVACY. Basic grammar and spelling are not a matter for GA class articles and above. I believe that articles appearing on the main page should conform with basic rules of grammar and spelling. As far as I can tell, sentences without a main verb and the spelling "discriminatin" are not acceptable in any version of English. C679 16:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Additionally I think the article is still not sufficiently neutral per Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL; the claims of employment based discrimination are sourced to a single personal correspondence. Further, The Hindu doesn't seem to adequately support the claim of education based discrimination against this particular group. If this discrimination was so commonplace, let's see sufficient referencing. Thanks, C679 17:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • When I last edited the article there were no typos (not a sp. mistake), and it was introduced with Ofc's edit and Ofc being a user who knows what he does I trusted his revision blindly (which if you read through the entire part was my biggest mistake). That is for the typo being labelled as sp. mistake. Now I agree with you that there is was no main verb in the last version I edited, practically due to my habit of losing my spectacles every now and then. The situation got worse when Gfonskar attempted a rewrite, then again after Ofc's c/e. My time in wiki getting shorter by the day I didn't get a chance to scan every other edit like an x-ray which led to this state of the article. Thanks for pointing it out.

    On a different note you should consider reading the policy WP:PA 'cause if I called you a [censored(French)] *****le then it would constitute as a PA not otherwise, again I commented on this review (your work) and not on you as a person. Oh! Above all I should recommend you to WP:PRESERVE and remind you that wp is not a battleground. Soham 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg NPOV concerns remain. Once those have been addressed I would like an uninvolved editor to make the decision about if it should be promoted. C679 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have introduced a ref, this one is from The Hindu too but what to do? Seems like it is the only WP:RS that has written on the topic. There is another Hindu ref and one book cite. Seems to manage the issue. Soham 07:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on February 8[edit]

book test

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 15:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Meets DYK criteria, but QPQ review required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Love it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Note: Glad you like it MM. The article reads very well, is long enough, and almost has enough cites. Could you just check that each para has a cite (I can see one now). The main hook fact is reffed but the relevant section is not available to me. As Cwmhiraeth notes the QPQ is required and I'm not sure if we need a third person to approve my hook. I think your tick will do. Victuallers (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It's at the bottom of page 227, that isn't visible to you? I get a pretty complete preview, I guess it depends on your IP? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

QPQ on Marquee Moon. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Third-person reviewer needed for ALT1 hook. As noted by Victuallers in his review, the second paragraph of the Mnemonic gimmicks section (the one describing "hybrid" systems) needs an inline source citation, so that should be checked by the reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The part about reading a book you have never seen is verified and cited inline. The part about the oldest trick in the book is AGF and cited inline. However, the second paragraph under Mnemonic gimmicks still doesn't have a cite. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • And if I can jump in with another question--I don't understand the Karmilovich entry in the bibliography: publication information is missing, and the link is to what looks like a sales brochure. Also, see "History", par. starting "Modern variations"--toward the end, there is mention of "both versions", which is unproblematic, but this is followed by "with better-known examples": examples of what? of both versions? I think the article as a whole needs a bit of a scrubbing. (I only came by here because I thought I might be able to deliver a quick reference for the un-footnoted paragraph, but was unable to.) Drmies (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Should all be there now. Drmies, I'm not sure any of this is suitable for discussion here, I think the talk page is more appropriate. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks. However, I believe these things are relevant in deciding on front-page coverage. I see that the link to the sales brochure is still there (I don't know what else to call it--it lists positive blurbs, the sales price, and the ordering information. I suppose that brochure is what's cited (" Karmilovich, p. 5.", for instance), but I don't see how the entire last paragraph of the section "Dictionary gimmicks" is verified on page 5 of that brochure. In other words, I wouldn't send it on in its current state, but I'm just passing by. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a sales brochure. Are you concerned about the suitability of this document to serve as a reference? Or is it something about the formatting or lack of information? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
      • It also struck me that the sales brochure is not a reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • We use marketing materials from thousands of companies in hundreds of thousands of articles, from Apple to Boeing. Can you be more specific about why you believe this one should not be used, in the manner it is being used? For instance, the first reference simply states that there is a version of the book test with this name. I would think that a brochure for said product with that name is perfectly suitable for proving existence. No? 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't think the brochure is complete enough. I would rather you cite the book it's promoting, not the brochure. If you found a page with a proper excerpt of the book material, it would be more acceptable. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
          • What Yoninah said. The claim that so many articles are "verified" by "references" like these can't really be taken seriously, and that one would verify a sales brochure for a book rather than the book itself runs counter to any encyclopedic intuition I've ever had. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So are you both saying this article cannot be passed for DYK in it's current form? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the ref should be removed from the page, and if it's the only ref for the text, the text should be removed too. Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question. Whatever, I give up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I would appreciate your cleaning up this referencing or deleting it and the text in question. Then the article is ready for DYK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I did. But it's too late now, April 1 has passed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you. If you could add a cite to the third paragraph under Dictionary gimmicks, we'll be ready to run. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)






Articles created/expanded on February 11[edit]

List of Olympians and Paralympians from Peel, Ontario

(note that for ALT2, I do have a medal chart that I just need to convert to wikicode and post)
  • Reviewed: Klallam language
  • Comment: I created this article in the draft space on February 1, but didn't release it into the mainspace until February 11.

Created by Zanimum (talk). Self nominated at 01:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg For the main hook, by "shut out" I think you mean "did not win a medal? Because athletes continued to compete. ALT1 is not sourced in the article (although it is stated). ALT2 is in the article, but the article needs some more references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Right, re: the term "shut out". I've modified it. I've added references for both McCredie and Laumann's roads now. Alt2 might be difficult to get done in a short time frame. There are reliable sources for each medal winner, but to try and get it all together before the end of the Olympics (I guess that hook works even better during the Paralympics, technically). -- Zanimum (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Struck original hook as being far too long at 225 characters. I was wondering on article's progress; it doesn't make sense to call for a new review if major expansion is ongoing, since significant additions will need to be reviewed even if the other sections have already been reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, just wondering how this is doing? Are there remaining issues? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Zanimum, I just asked the same thing of you right here not an hour ago: are you done with your expansion, or is it still continuing? The review shouldn't resume until you're done with the major work on the article, and you've made extensive changes in the past 48 hours. (I've just now adjusted the template, including the ALT hooks, to reflect the new name of the article. The template itself is fine where it is and should not be moved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article is stable for review. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Long enough, new enough, QPQ done, no copyvios found. Please fix footnote 16 as it is bare.--Launchballer 19:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that half the medals won by Olympians from Peel, Ontario were won by Jeff Adams and Stephanie Dixon?--Launchballer 19:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment only - Launchballer you can't yet claim QPQ for this DYK. Your review does not include a full DYK check. What about sourcing? And which hooks have you checked? And which hook/s are you okaying? A more thorough job is needed here. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT1 is uninteresting, ALT2 doesn't make grammatical sense and ALT3 is also uninteresting. I've looked at the sourcing and as far as the listing of names is concerned, I'd like to see at least one reference per name - this can be done by lifting references from other articles.--Launchballer 09:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on February 14[edit]

Theodore Katsanevas

Greek PM Papandreou, whose will called Katsanevas a disgrace

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Nominated by Nemo bis (talk) at 16:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is long enough at 1920 characters of prose. The hook is short enough, at 164 characters. The article is new. Only one Two of the English language sources directly cited for the hook uses the word "Disgrace". (I can't review the Greek-language ones.) The SFGate source now links to a completely different story, a better link should be found or the source removed. The DYKcheck tool reports that the article is marked as a stub, although i don't see any stub tag. The Hook is surely interesting. The image in the template is not yet in the article. This can and should be cleaned up enough to pass, but I don't think it passes at the moment. DES (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. You're right, the sourcing was improvable and it's now better: there are three sources for the word "disgrace" (hri.org, SFgate, thepressproject; the first being quite "official"); I also added a source for the translation of disgrazia into disgrace, note that Corriere della sera is the most important newspaper of Italy hence there is no better news source possible from Western Europe I'd say. --Nemo 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A better, free, picture is File:Andreas Papandreou (1968).jpg, but neither is really relevant in the article under review. Another day or two should see plenty of English-language sources emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Do you think it's better to remove the image? As Katsanevas says in his reactions to his will referenced in the article, Papandreou played a crucial role in his life and career, it wouldn't be out of place in the article either. [4] could be considered PD if the biography of a prof. is mandated by a law or policy and if universities are considered a branch of the public administration in Greece (commons:Template:PD-GreekGov), but this would need some better research. --Nemo 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on using a picture, but somehow the tomb doesn't seem like a good choice. Any picture used should, i would think, be in the article, or else in another linked article (linked in the hook I mean). I was incorrect about the SFGate source, and I have corrected my comments above. The image and the stub tag if there really is one there, now seem to be the only things holding this up. It would be nice if the article was divided into sections, but it is not big enough for this to be required, in my view. DES (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    The article is no longer a stub. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    OK, I've divided it in two sections which seem relevant and added the photo in both the article and the proposed DYK above. The stub template has been removed hours ago, perhaps the tool is querying outdated data
    You probably all know what PM stands for? Readers can find out the exact family relationship in the article, don't tell them all.
    ALT2: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly named a disgrace for the family in the will of former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    ALT3 ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly named a "disgrace for the family" in the will of former prime minister Andreas Papandreou, his father-in-law (pictured)? DES (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Issues dealt with, QPQ done, image ok, looks good to go as soon as one hook or another is selected. i prefer Alt3, but any would be acceptable. DES (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If ALT3, I would move (pictured) behind his name, - it's the person who is pictured, not his family status. Imagine: I don't think the term father-in-law makes the hook more attractive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • On the placment of "(pictured)" you are correct, it should follow the name. I found ALT2 confusin because it gives no indication of what the relation or connection between Katsanevas and Papandreou is. Part of the point of the hook, to me is that this is in part, a family dispute. So...
ALT4: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly named a "disgrace for the family" in the will of his father-in-law, former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)? DES (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with ALT3 + Gerda's amendment. --Nemo 23:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC) P.s.: That is, with ALT4 above.

Symbol delete vote.svg A reminder: a court hearing related to the subject is going to take place in March 11th WMF blog Greek Wikipedia announcement. It may be provocative for the court to highlight it on the Main Page and focus on this more than it is needed. I suggest to get advice from Michelle Paulson before putting it in the DYK section. -geraki TL 10:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Correct symbol. The big orange x is for when there is pretty much no way in h*** an article will make it to the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a routine editorial decision and it won't be affected by anything other than Wikipedia's pillars and neutrality. Hic manebimus optime. --Nemo 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you read that WMF blog post? Its spirit is that we should be able to write about notable subjects, according to our usual policies, without being cowed by dubious legal action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Striking ALT5 as far too long for DYK at 320 characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Some comments on the other hooks: the original hook and ALT1 use "defined" which doesn't seem correct; the article currently says "described", which makes more sense, and "called" would also work. ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4 all use "disgrace for the family" (though ALT2 does not have the phrase in quotes), while the article uses the more common and better "disgrace to the family" wording (quoted). I strongly suggest that if any of these hooks are eventually used, they be modified with the more accurate and effective wording noted here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with BlueMoonset, and if my two cents on this issue matter, I have no objection with the hook running and don't see any policy explicitly against it, but insist on accuracy/fidelity to the sources given the litigious nature of this bête noire who is the subject of the article. I think this ilithios Katsanevas just created another example of the Streisand effect, and has proven the correctness of his father-in-law's judgment of him, but we should stick directly to what is asserted by the reliable sources provided.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ALT6: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly called a "disgrace to the family" in the will of his father-in-law, former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)?
Thanks for the suggestions. I think we're way more than ready to go, if the only objections are such just but surely minor nitpicks. :) Can someone add it to the actual DYK? Or can I do so myself even though I'm the proposer? --Nemo 19:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nemo, you are the one person who absolutely may not approve or promote this nomination, since you are the nominator and furthermore have proposed the only surviving hook. (I've just struck the other hooks due to those wording issues I noted.) Given the number of edits to the article since the most recent positive review, this should be given a final review, and the review should go beyond just checking ALT6 to explicitly cover issues of neutrality and do a close paraphrase check (which doesn't appear to have been done before), as well as confirm that it meets BLP guidelines. Once that's done it should be ready to go, but definitely not before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding:

ALT7: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was called a "disgrace to the family" in the will of his father-in-law, former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)?

which differs from ALT6 only in dropping the weasel-word "reportedly", which is not in the article. Why is this nomination still not promoted, after nearly a month, particularly when the nominator requested speedy action? The changes since 16 Feb are not significant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg I would say good to go on ALT7. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
New suggestion
Symbol possible vote.svg I pulled the hook from prep 4. Regardless of the merits of the hook (the hook looks entirely valid), given that there is current/recent litigation over the way this living person has been described in another Wikipedia, it would be really stupid timing to highlight this fact on the main page right now. Maybe an alternative hook can be written about how his story demonstrates the Streisand effect. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
New suggestion:
ALT8: ... that legal action by Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas over the Greek Wikipedia article about him may have resulted in a Streisand effect? --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Struck ALT8 to clarify it's not consensual and rejected (in case someone didn't notice from this whole section). --Nemo 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but if the intent is to have an independent person review this, having it struck out by you as rejected doesn't really help the situation. I've unstruck it for the moment, so Fram's request can go forward. - Bilby (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Reiterating support for hook 7, per my comment time-stamped '17:32, 17 February 2014'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The issue here isn't the content of articles, but rather the statements that are highlighted on the main page. In the context of the litigation, don't you see how putting the "disgrace to the family" words on the main page could be received as rubbing the article subject's nose in a bit of excrement? --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of any legal ramifications, I find ALT8 focusing on the current Streisand effect more timely and interesting than ALT7 which focuses on language in a will that has been public since 1996.24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't follow the discussion much (other than adding a symbol that I thought was simply forgotten, nonono, I will not do that again.) Reading ALT7, I would expect to find in the article that he wasn't really a "disgrace". And if he sort of was, how is it "rubbing his nose"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Gerda, the article doesn't indicate that he wasn't a disgrace. Most of the article is about the aftermath of the will. As for the nose-rubbing, that is an idiomatic expression for taunting a person with reminders of their misfortune. See [5]. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I came across this argument from another user on another talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Theodore_Katsanevas_hook) against ALT7 that seemed worth sharing here: "This hook violates Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook, section "content", bullet 4: 'Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.'" 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As I noted on that discussion; the key word is "unduly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
My own opinion is that ALT7 focuses unduly on negative comments about Katsanevas made by someone else, whereas ALT8 focuses on his own actions and their consequences, but "unduly" is definitely a debatable point. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It appears that we need a fresh review. --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Your opinion, but you can't review a hook proposal you made yourself. --Nemo 13:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a dick about this, but I agree with Andy. This is not "unduly" negative, it's a news story, and we've run hooks on prostitutes, murderers, and other malefactors who did a lot worse than get called a disgrace by his ex-wife's old man. Also, the asshole this hook is about had an uninvolved Wikipedia admin dragged into court under the threat of arrest to force him to censor the article... and you're upset that the hook points that out that a reliable source called him a disgrace? Sorry, but some of you people are a little too thin-skinned, afraid of your own shadow, and are misinterpreting the bullet 4. Also, "should be avoided" in no way means "must". This hook met the rules, and I approved ALT7 as such. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Also, I will be incredibly disappointed with some of you milquetoast editors if this does not run at DYK just because you misinterpret the rule so that we can't say anything even remotely unpleasant about a bad man. ad absurdam, under such an extremist interpretation, this kind of timidity would make it so that we'd be too scared to talk about or present anything at DYK except for the "puppy dogs and ice cream" trivia about a subject and get bullshit like DYK...that Kanye West and Charles Manson both like trees?. Speaking as a man who had the most viewed DYK hook this month because I happened to mention the word "virgin" in the hook, a DYK section that is all puppy dogs and ice cream factoids would be fucking boring and as enjoyable as an acid enema.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I find Alt7 to be unduly negative - it doesn't feel appropriate for the front page, even without the legal issues and the impression it would give readers. I'm more neutral about others, but Alt8 seems like a valid alternative. - Bilby (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I fully support option 7. Yes, it is unduly negative but we may exercise our discretion regarding unduly negative hooks, and in this instance I think unduly negative commentary in our hook is entirely appropriate. (Very tempting but no. I've reconsidered below) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I recall the issues raised about revenge editing with Qworty. It seems to me that deliberately running what you've accepted as an unduly negative hook on the front page about someone currently engaged in controversial legal action against a WP editor is not the way I'd like to see an encyclopedia with NPOV as one of its central tenets presented. I'd oppose Alt7 for anyone. I'd certainly oppose it under these circumstances. - Bilby (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It reminds me more of the FBI shield DYK nomination back in 2010, when the WMF was engaged in a dispute with the FBI over fair use of an image of the FBI shield. I opposed that one but my attitude appears to have changed since then. I'll think a bit more on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. I oppose running this on the main page.
  • Orlady's point below - that the article is unbalanced, unduly focussed on a negative critique - is valid, and reason enough not to point readers to it until it no longer violates WP:BLP in that regard.
  • But the elephant in the room is also a problem. Doing this, now, is using the encyclopedia to play a part in a dispute between the subject and the encyclopedia, and I think doing so would be allowing a significant conflict of interest to influence our editorial decision-making and be a misuse of the encyclopedia, undermining (in appearance and actuality) the neutrality of the encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I also support ALT7, it shows a negative opinion, but not unduly so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alt7 and other similar hooks, we can easily have a neutral hook about notable aspects of the same person, it is not some individual where the only notable episode or fact of his life involves a negative or controversial event. Comparing the hook we choose for an article on a scholar and politician with a long career, with hooks we run for prostitutes, murderers, and the like, is rather besides the point. Arguments to use this because it would get more views are really telling and disappointing though. We are not a tabloid that needs spicing up the front page to get more views. Fram (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but self-censorship sucks, and my comparison is not "besides the point"...we've put DYK hooks up on the main page that were a lot worse, and a lot more that were as boring as dried dung on the prairie.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And I have stopped a number that were as bad or worse as well. DYK has many errors, but previous errors are not a reason to make one now. I don't like boring hooks either, but we shouldn't use an un-boring one if it means violating our DYK BLP-rule. Fram (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And we disagree, and I consider your reluctance to post this hook on the main page to be milquetoast and weak-in-the-knees. The rule is being subjectively misinterpreted. You think it's "unduly" negative, I don't. Also, you equate the advisory "should be avoided", an intermediate deontic modality, with the mandate "must be avoided". "Should" denotes and connotes one option among many valid and exercisable options ([6] see 13.1)--and several us believe that ALT7 SHOULD run on the main page. It's far more interesting than another spider or another laudatory-ass-kissing factoid about a banal pop star.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Underneath your expert language, you seem to be confusing "should" with "may". "Should" does" not simply denote one option amongst many, it indicates the option that, barring more important other reasons, must be chosen. "Not censored" is not more important, or the "should not" option will never come into effect. If you can't present a good reason why "should not" does not apply specifically in this case, then "should not" remains "will not" in this case. Fram (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And I'll get you that reason when you provide something objective that is a little bit more substantive than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggested the Streisand effect hook (ALT8) because it seems interesting and I don't perceive it as unduly negative. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT8 is unacceptable to me on principle.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What principle would that be? --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That there's no actionable, objective reason to oppose ALT7, and opposing ALT7 is regrettably self-censorship. So, I'll oppose ALT8 on the same specious grounds that it's "unduly" negative and "should" be avoided.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And there's the notion that ALT8 is an uninteresting editorial observation, not a fact. The fact is he was called a disgrace. The "Streisand effect" is an editorial observation that unfortunately, because it started as a Wikipedia comment, is navel-gazing. There's a difference in how compelling something is, I don't care what someone else's summary of an event is, I'd rather hear about the event. ALT7 is fact, ALT8 is navel-gazing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As best I can determine from what you wrote here, your "principle" is a statement of your personal commitment to being oppositional -- and possibly behaving outrageously. That's fine for you, but it's not consistent with Wikipedia policy.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now that's out of the way, let me observe that the underlying issue with this hook is the unbalanced nature of the article. This is a respected academic who served 15 years in his national parliament, has written numerous books and articles[7], and apparently is a leader of an active movement calling for Greece to abandon the euro, but the article is almost entirely about his disputes with his former in-laws -- which spilled over to a dispute with Wikipedia. Is there any chance of expanding the article content about him, his career, and his ideas? --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for some outside input and / or conclusion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas. Fram (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest, Fram, but this escalation looks absurd to me: this nomination was passed on 20:49, 15 February 2014; we've nitpicked over synonyms till 19:59, 28 February 2014 but since that day there's been no reason whatsoever not do add this hook. It was passed by a second user on 15:15, 12 March 2014. Since 13 March 2014 several users have been debating a clearly provocative second proposal, but this whole section should just be ignored. --Nemo 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Nemo, you have just re-promoted a hook for a DYK you nominated in the first place. What is needed, and what I have asked for, is an uninvolved closer, and preferably first some further previously uninvolved opinions to get a clearer view of the consensus. It may be that your preferred version gets the final approval, but none of us is in a position to give that approval (or final approval for another hook) anymore. My "excalation" is just an attempt to get out of this situation without further problems. I have not indicated what should happen, what the problems were, I have given a neutral description and appeal. Sadly, Gerda Arendt has then given a clearly non-neutral "hint" below my statement, no idea why that was needed if not to influence the discussion... Fram (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I approved a hook above and did so rather neutrally 13 days ago--not that that matters.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutrally? In your first comment, from 18:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC), you called the man "ilithios", i.e. an "idiot". Further comments on this page have clearly shown your strong dislike for the subject. You are not a neutral closer, but a biased one. Fram (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fram, what do you mean re-promoted? I never passed this nomination, I only implemented ColonelHenry's and DES' approval. At any rate, I only did so once (it seemed people were scared by Geraki's words or something). If someone else does so, I'm ok with that. --Nemo 14:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was promoted previously, you re-promoted it[8], citing WP:DYKNN, even though that says "When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created." And at the moment, while some people approved the hook, about the same number rejected it, so your promotion was clearly not uncontroversial, making it even less acceptable (as nominator). Fram (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Nemo, it was promoted initially by another editor after I gave the GTG for ALT7. Fram's "re-promoted" is in reference to that earlier action based on my GTG that moved the hook to prep which was later pulled because of reasons in the debate that ensued above. This is ridiculous. The hook is good and meets the rules, and its appearance would attract attention to improve the article (and maybe insert material to improve the balance...but I don't see the balance as being too problematic right now), the reasons to oppose the hook are specious and a misreading of the rules and it's a disservice to Wikipedia to keep this hook tabled for specious reasons.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, we know your opinion by now, and we know mine. That's why I asked for uninvolved opinions and closure. If it truly is a misreading of the rules and a disservice to Wikipedia, then consensus will swiftly align with your position surely? I don't see why my asking for external input so that this can finally be concluded is apparently so problematic for the people supporting Alt7... Fram (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As for Orlady's suggestions for article improvement and balance, I'll add some material in the next day or two about his contributions to economics and politics. I have asked a Greek colleague of ours who is a little more partial to the article subject's positions to provide some material. Once we improve the balance of coverage, there should be no substantive objection to ALT7.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • While it is obviously better to have a balanced article, Alt7 remains an unduly negative hook. It's tabloid material, the opinion of one prominent family member about another (slightly less) prominent family member, not the kind of thing we should have on our frontpage for a BLP. Fram (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Strike the adverb "unduly" -- just like we struck "reportedly" above. It's unduly subjective and subject to ambiguity. If you can't call a disgraceful man a disgrace, then we can't call another man good. A fact is a fact. Just like "should" does not equal "must" or your insistence on "may". If the man were relevant because of his minority economic theories and research, he would have had an article written on that by now...he's a minor actor in a big family known only for his ignominy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Lack of an article does not mean lack of notability or relevance. Your personal dislike for the man is quite clear, but that doesn't mean that you just need to be insulting every time you discuss him. If he truly was only known for the will, then he shouldn't have an article at all. Fram (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Actually, I could not care less about the man. Do not equate my side in the debate with a reduction to so debased and common as having any "personal" feelings. I only care about (a) Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself from letting facts appear just because they paint a bad person or event badly. Facts are facts and (b) Reporting facts shouldn't be grounds for retaliation--and the reporting of facts is the best defense against such retaliation, and (c) I have a severe disgust for namby-pamby editors who get offended by reality. In fact, I have more respect for Teddy for having the balls to be a "disgrace" than I do for someone who thinks stating the fact that he was a disgrace is "unduly negative" because of their subjective notion of "we shouldn't say that". I might actually agree with you on the merits of whether there should be an article. He's not major in economics, he's rather impotent politically, and his notability vis-à-vis the will is only through inherited notability (or notoriety). I compare him with the notability of Jihad Jane. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. Someone unstruck alt8 above. Alt8 basically would be attacking the person with a piece of original research, hence I thought it a sarcastic proposal, isn't it? Does anyone agree with placing that unsourced attack on the main page? --Nemo 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Who do you feel that it is original research to say that he created a Streisland effect through his actions? And why do you feel that saying so is attacking him, when saying that he was called a disgrace to his family is not? - Bilby (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's an attack to say that. However, the characterization--that TK's bellyaching created a Streisand Effect originated from Wikipedia, the news reported on it, then Wikipedia used that news source to support the claim. Essentially, a feedback loop. Therefore to report on it as if it were fact is improper.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not really the problematic feedback loop, though. :) What we normally have is a nasty situation where we say something, the press repeats it, and we reference the press. In this case we have an event involving us, which the media has commented on, and we're referencing the media. That seems to be a viable approach. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And you ignore the initial use of "Streisand effect" was from Wikipedia. That, textbook, is a feedback loop.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was quoting a Wikipedian, rather than a quote taken from a Wikipedia article. - Bilby (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The term was being bantered about days before the quotation. Unfortunately Wikipedians are often too quick to label things as a "Streisand Effect" and put that mention in articles, mention it on talk pages, and criticise the process when they shoot the shit on an offsite Wikipedia-related forum.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
ALT9: ... that Theodore Katsanevas is professor of labour economics at the University of Piraeus?
On 1 April, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Alt10: That Wikipedia should not even think about putting this on DYK for the extremely obvious reason that to do so would give rise to an appearance of vindictiveness. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, JzG - welcome back, I thought they banned you for good last time--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just hold off for a few weeks or months until the litigation passes? There's no hurry in getting this particular hook published, and doing so currently at such an improper time is in violation of numerous policies such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and plenty others. The hook might even be worded in the most neutral way possible, but if we give the slightest appearance of non-neutrality, especially when we have a clear conflict of interest in defending another Wikipedia editor, it does damage to our credibility in the long run. No matter our best intentions and best revision of the hook, the public might just choose to think otherwise when we publish an arguably extremely controversial news piece. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 07:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)








Articles created/expanded on February 19[edit]

Cranial nerve

Cranial nerves as they pass through the skull base to the brain.

  • ... that cranial nerves (pictured) emerge directly from the brain and supply it with motor and sensory innervation?

5x expanded by CFCF (talk), Lesion (talk). Nominated by CFCF (talk) at 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

  • As in the article, I think this DYK would read better as 'emerge directly from the brain' rather than 'arise'.Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, fixed. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg This top-importance Anatomy/Neuroscience/Neurology page has, in the last few days, been greatly expanded (>5-fold after excluding per MEDMOS, mnemonics) and improved by three Wikipedians working in close collaboration (see [9]) in a way which, I believe, really deserves recognition. The sourcing is largely based on major textbooks, per WP:MEDRS. The hook appears suitably pithy and striking: without being gimmicky in any way, it evokes a memorable mental picture regarding our brain-body interactions. Despite the presence of a few (comprehensible) sourcing requests I think this would make a really good encyclopedic contribution to DYK. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: (While I think the hook paints a good picture, I wasn't quite so sure about the effectiveness of image itself, at its present size. But then again, colour blindness means I'm probably not a good judge of this anyway...) 81.147.166.111 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [formerly 86.173.146.3]

Might this image be better?
--CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the main image from the article won't do very well in such a small format though. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
No, because it uses red, one of the colours most commonly affected by colour-blindness, to convey information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg While I agree that this would make an excellent DYK hook for the main page, the "citation needed" templates need to be addressed before this can properly be given an approval here. I don't imagine it will take that long to find the appropriate sourcing. I also have a question: in addition to CFCF and Lesion, the initial 23K expansion edit also lists LT910001 as one of the expanders. Shouldn't this user also be receiving credit for this DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
LT910001 helped organize the structure in the discussion page, but writing was me and Lesion. I don't mind who gets credit, but I didn't see how to add third author?
As for citations, I'm on it. Most of them are gone, have two that need to be fixed, but I'll be done with it today as soon as I get hold of some good evolutionary neurobiology sources (didn't write that portion, even though it seems fully correct). CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • CFCF, thanks for your response. I only asked about LT910001 because that user was mentioned in a edit summary; looking at the single talk-page comment, I don't think that is a DYK-credit-worthy contribution in the scheme of things. The nomination is still waiting for the last of the citation issues to be addressed; hope you can get to it soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll have the sources by Monday.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Done -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Would like to have this looked at by someone better acquainted with DYK rules than the original reviewer. Please check overall sourcing and do a close paraphrase check. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Mostly OK. Article is long enough and new enough. No QPQ required for this contributor. Hook fact is in the article and is supported by citations. Because I can't see the sources, I have to AGF on hook sourcing and questions of copyvio. Image license for the first-proposed image looks OK; it's not clear if OTRS has confirmed the permission for the alternative image of the sheep.
My one reservation is a lack of citation footnotes for some passages in the article that appear to require them. Specifically, I see a need for citations for the "Summary" table entries about nerves III through XII, the "Ganglia" section, the second paragraph (the one with bullets) in "Cranial nerve columns", and the "note" about the facial nerve in the section "Exiting the skull". I recognize that the basis for this content is likely in the other Wikipedia articles that are hyperlinked, but Wikipedia can't cite itself as an authority. --Orlady (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The article has been updated quite a bit recently, and is going for GA status. Maybe we should wait that out, else I have perfect sources for these statements in Moore's clinical anatomy, should I add a citation to each table or is it sufficient to add on in the end of the entire table? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The Clinical significance header still has several unreferenced paragraphs. The table could be cited with just one reference. But you will have to consider whether more will be added to the table later. The only likely addition would be columns, in which case it could make sense to add the ref tags to the column headers. However some functions are referenced to different places, so probably each other functions should have its own reference. The Course section also has no reference. The Nuclei section does not mention the Terminal Nerve which perhaps connects to septal nuclei (not a DYK issue though). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on February 20[edit]

ThePsychoExWife.com

Created/expanded by 72.74.207.196 (talk). Nominated by 72.74.206.122 (talk) at 01:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article has an orphan tagged that needs to be addressed by linking from other articles within the encyclopedia and then removed. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Is that really necessary for a DYK nomination? 72.74.214.237 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've deorphaned the article. Now it's time for a review. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg - As an aside: the hook was nominated and created by an IP. DYK requires autoconfirmed status to nominate articles to DYK. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg EagerToddler, that's not a DYK rule; it's just an artifact of the setup of Wikipedia. The fact is that the interface does not allow non-autoconfirmed users to create new template pages, so they are physically prevented from submitting DYK noms according to the normal procedure. There never has been an intent to block them from participating in DYK. Ideally, an IP user like this one would register and become autoconfirmed. Failing that, they are encouraged to post their proposals for noms (including proposed hooks, image file names, etc.) at WT:DYK and request that someone else create the nom on their behalf. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have not done a complete review yet, but I find that the article has some policy issues: non-neutral POV and original research. Its content and tone are skewed to the perspective of the website owners, in opposition to the "ex-wife". (For example, I see adoption of the website's perspective in statements like post ... clarified that, despite the website's provocative name, ThePsychoExWife.com was intended for both divorced men and women and Weaver-Ostinato explained, the blog voiced genuine concerns, particularly in the use of words like "clarified" and "explained" and "genuine".) The original research is in the form of statements like Morelli's case had nearly universal support from First Amendment legal experts and The response from the blogosphere was mixed and understandably divided along gender lines, which seem to represent a Wikipedia contributor's evaluations -- not someone else's published evaluations. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking over the article. I tried to keep it in as neutral a tone as possible but I don't have a problem if certain statements need to be reworded. 72.74.217.22 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a few changes. Do you think I'd be better off removing the two quotes in the "History" section? Please let me know if there's anything else I've missed. Thanks. 72.74.217.22 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've finally gotten back to this article and DYK nomination. I trimmed the first quote in the History section and made some other edits to make this more like a standard encyclopedia article. I think the current version of the article is sufficiently balanced. Now my only concern is with the hook. I don't find that the article substantiates the statement that the blog was "critical of American divorce law and the family court system". The article does indicate that the blog presented complaints about family court, but it's not clear that it was broadly critical of divorce law in general, nor of the entire system. I can approve a shortened version of the hook:
Symbol confirmed.svg *ALT1: ... that The Psycho Ex-Wife, an anonymous blog, was shut down by a U.S. family court judge? --Orlady (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on February 21[edit]

2014 Boston Marathon

Created by Sportsguy17 (talk). Self nominated at 22:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Only 1311 characters. Furthermore, I am not sure if this is notable. --Jakob (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • With regards to the character length, I checked it earlier and was a lot more than 1311, but just in case, I added additional content, so it definitely is now 1500. With regards to notability, it is most certainly notable. Having the second largest number of participants for a worldwide event over 118 years is most certainly notable. Sportsguy17 (TC) 01:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent sources yet. Maybe that will happen after the race. --Jakob (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not true at all. Just Google "Boston Marathon 2014 gets 36,000 entrants" and you will find at least 4-5 other sources about this. This is not an ITN nomination, so it does not have to be the most notable/significant current event, and I have shown why its notable. Sportsguy17 (TC) 15:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg :*ATL1 ... that in spite of increased security measures at the 2014 Boston Marathon, the tradition of kisses from Wellesley College students will still be allowed?
The article is currently 1649 characters (0 words) "readable prose size". The Boston Marathon in any year is notable. More so considering last year's bombing. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Fine, I just think the article could be developed more with time. I have a slight preference for the original hook. --Jakob (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg And so it should, as with copy-editing it's back under 1500. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: - I added some updates based on today's release about items allowed. This is over 1500 characters. I personally don't think your revert of the promotion was proper to begin with, but just to be sure, I added an update. It should be good now and concerns have been addressed. Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, because now you've readded a number of phrasing/tone problems and redundancies, which need to be (re)addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
So, what do I need do for this to pass then? This should've passed the first time...Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've pushed the character count from 1444 to 1607. GabrielF (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed all issues and it should be good again. Sportsguy17 (TC) 02:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the Boston Marathon is ITN/R which means it will be posted on ITN once it takes place. I guess that puts it in kind of a gray area (if posted on ITN first, it would be ineligible for DYK). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The Boston Marathon isn't for 6 weeks, on April 21. In that time, if some knowledgeable person could help this editor, the article and hook could be worked on and have already been on the main page before then. The Boston Marathon is out of my knowledge base. But this is possible if someone would help this new editor. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on February 23[edit]

Road accidents in Tamil Nadu, Violence against women in Tamil Nadu

  • Reviewed: Not a self nom

Created by Ssriram mt (talk). Nominated by Gfosankar (talk) at 05:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Review of Road accidents in Tamil Nadu: Article is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ necessary for non-self-nomination. A citation is needed for the 70 percent figure under Causes. I also don't understand the use of the word "ease" in the second paragraph, second line under Causes. The hook doesn't make sense to me (the two party leaders did advocate prohibition) and I don't see the hook fact in the article. Perhaps you can shorten the hook and just focus on the second part? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a lot for nominating and taking up the review. I have expanded the lead, expanded the causes, trimmed the leader part and added a couple of more references.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The Times of India link is not opening for me. What do you want to do about the hook? BTW, this article is an orphan; no other Wikipedia articles link to it. You might want to do something about that so it doesn't get tagged. Yoninah (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have linked the article and have also added points for the hook. The TOI link is opening fine for me - may be you would like to open it in a different browser or search against the title.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I've started working on the violence against women article. I'm finding problems with poor writing quality, including but not limited to excessive borrowing from cited sources. I've identified one issue that I won't be able to resolve without help: There are some references to "UNESCO report 1993", with hyperlinks to the UNESCO article. We need a reference citation the enables a reader to identify the source cited; this citation does not do that. --Orlady (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, book references follow short citation style where the same book is referred is multiple times. UNESCO should be with the # symbol referring to the bottom portion of references - I have corrected it now. Let me know for further updates.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the linkage. Now that I know that "UNESCO" refers to the document listed with author name "Kosambi", I've edited the citations so they identify the reference as "Kosambi". --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Another progress report. I don't find support for the hook fact, with respect to violence against women. The article as I found it said "alcoholism is believed to be one of the major reasons for violence against women in Tamil Nadu," but it turned out that the source for this was the opinion of one activist. After reading the sources, I have revised that statement and another statement about calls for prohibition of alcohol to say: "Some politicians and social activists name alcoholism as a major cause of rape and other forms of violence against women in Tamil Nadu and have cited this as a reason for calling for reinstatement of prohibition in Tamil Nadu." I have learned from sources that the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) party is campaigning against alcohol -- and even blames alcohol for 90% of all crime in Tamil Nadu -- but the party's positions are not discussed explicitly in the article, and the party's statements are not specifically focused on violence against women. I will continue examining the article (there are still a lot issues with it), but I suggest restating the hook as follows:
Sure, thanks. I will try to modify the portions as well.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on February 24[edit]

Poultry

Eggs on sale in Hong Kong

  • ... that the global poultry industry was expected to produce 65.5 million tonnes of eggs (pictured) in 2013?

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 10:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Impressively expanded article! Long enough and 5x expanded. Within policy. Hook is OK, supported by a ref and certainly significant enough to be interesting. Having refs in the introductory section would not hurt bat all in all, good to go. Micromesistius (talk) 21:03, 1 March 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 "traditional small-scale, family-based poultry systems are important in sustaining livelihoods and supplying poultry products in rural areas" with "Traditional small-scale, rural, family-based poultry systems continue to play a crucial role in sustaining livelihoods in developing countries, supplying poultry products in rural areas". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have dealt with that one. Any more problems? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes: a further example is "In rice-producing areas, ducks have traditionally been managed under a traditional herding system. They have been selected for their ability to glean most of their food from their environment of harvested rice fields, canals, swamps and waterways" versus "ducks in the rice producing areas of the Orient have been managed under the traditional herding system. Under this system, native ducks are selected for generations for their ability to glean most of their food from harvested rice fields, levees, swamps and waterways". Please be aware that automated tools like Duplication Detector often return false negatives, so it's helpful (though time-consuming) to review sources manually. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I have rewritten that to "The ducks are mostly still herded in the traditional way and are selected for their ability to find sufficient food in harvested rice fields and other wet environments." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)










Articles created/expanded on February 27[edit]

Shadism

  • ... that shadism is a form of discrimination common in Aboriginal, African, Asian, Hispanic and Indian cultures?

5x expanded by Shaina390 (talk). Nominated by Jaobar (talk) at 14:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT1: ... that Academy-Award winning actress Lupita Nyong'o felt the effects of shadism, as she was teased about her dark skin as a child? 64.231.163.79 at 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article: On 27 February 2014, when this article was nominated for DYK, it had been expanded more than five times from the previous version. It also appears to be adequately referenced. However, the difficulty I have is that the references neither appear to use the term shadism at all, nor state clearly that shadism is "common" in the cultures mentioned. For example, the article referred to in footnote 1 uses the term colorism. (The full versions of many of the references – such as those mentioned in footnotes 2 and 3 – are not available.) I therefore fear that the article is the product of synthesis.
  • Hook: Subject to what I said above, the hook is of appropriate length and is supported by offline references which may be accepted in good faith. — Regards, Truth's Out There (speak the truth) 21:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, and thank you for your comments. I recognize that the only source I had that explicitly mentioned the term 'Shadism' was my Bim Adewunmi piece from The Guardian. I have added more sources that explicitly name and describe the term 'shadism.' Shadism is different to colorism, as shadism is usually intraraical or internalized and deals with skin tone within race and not race itself, as opposed to colorism, which is usually interracial and deals with discrimination based on race, as opposed to different skin tones within a race. The term shadism is well known and often used in race-based communities, but is still being developed in academic writing. It is a term that certainly exists, and should be recognized apart from colourism or racism, because it is not the same thing. To my article, I added a piece from The Toronto Star in which black high school students discuss spreading awareness of shadism in their school during Black History Month, another in which Indian-Canadian playwright Anita Majumdar discusses her fear of the sun's impact on her skin and in turn her life and success, and a paragraph on the Canadian documentary 'Shadeism', which revolves around the topic and how it affects 5 young women of different ethnicities. I am quite passionate about this subject, and I very much want my page to demonstrate that there is a name for this discriminatory practice that people, particularly people of colour may notice, and that that name is shadism.--Shaina390 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's laudable that you have put a lot of work into creating this article, but my concern is that other more experienced editors will feel that there is too much original research and, in particular, is the result of synthesis. As that guideline states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." I will leave it to an experienced editor or the DYK administrator to determine whether this is the case. I would suggest that you have a section right at the top of the article defining what shadism is and citing the three sources you mentioned above.
  • I also notice that you have (or someone else has) deleted the original hook and replaced it with a new one. Unfortunately, this hook is currently not acceptable because (1) I don't think external links are accepted in hooks; (2) the information in the hook does not appear anywhere in the article; and (3) even if you included it in the article and provided the YouTube video as a reference, the YouTube video does not mention shadism at all. Furthermore, it appears to be a copyright violation, in that it was uploaded to YouTube by someone other than the copyright holder of the video. Note that "Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide" states: "The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source." — Regards, Truth's Out There (speak the truth) 15:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I've read through the article and note the page creator's expansive knowledge of the subject of skin-tone discrimination and also the inclusion of lots of sourcing. I don't think this is a question of original research, but of whether Shadism and Colorism should be merged. Both articles use the same definition for the subject: discrimination due to skin tone. If Shaina390 can explain the difference between Shadism and Colorism, and provide reliable sources to back it up, it should be stated clearly in the lead, even with a few sentences or a whole paragraph. Otherwise, as Truth'soutthere noted, most of the sources being used for the Shadism article are referring to Colorism, and since the Colorism article isn't so well-referenced, it would be a good idea to merge the information in Shadism to Colorism. Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello; I would argue that colorism is like racism in that it deals with the color of a person's skin (black, white) but not their shade, or how light or how dark their skin is within their race and the stereotypes that comes with that. While this difference may sound insignificant, it is actually very prevalent and meaningful. Because shadism very often comes from within one's own race (Indian with light skin, Indian with dark skin), it is a different form of discrimination that I would argue warrants it's own page. The 'Discrimination based on skin color' page, in my opinion, is describing a broader form of discrimination, which is racism. Shadism is very often intraracial, and internalized. Please also see my response to your comment on the shadism talk page.--Shaina390 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Now you are giving us a much more fine-tuned definition of shadism, Shaina. But looking through your sources, I can't find that many that verify that point. In fact, the article seems padded with blog pages or chat columns in magazines that really aren't saying the point you're trying to make. Now I understand and accept Truth'soutthere's original point that the article is based on original research. You may very well want to argue that shadism (which, by the way, should probably be spelled Shadeism, as one of your sources has it) is different from colorism, but on Wikipedia, your sources have to state it explicitly and prove it, not you. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Also, as regards the ALT1 hook, I think it may be a problem that the source for the hook only mentions that Nyong'o was teased about her dark skin as a child. The fact that she thus felt the effects of shadism is not mentioned in the hook, but is a conclusion drawn by the article's author(s). — Regards, Truth's Out There (speak the truth) 12:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)










Articles created/expanded on March 1[edit]

Norwich School (independent school)

Norwich School chapel, the main schoolroom until the 19th century

Improved to Good Article status by Duffit5 (talk). Self nominated at 11:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC).

Suggestion for Women's History Month Victuallers (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (alt2) ... that girls were first admitted to Norwich School (pictured) in 1994, marking the end of 898 years of single-sex education at the school?
Another possible suggestion for Women's History Month Duffit talk 12:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg Day old GA. All of these hooks are supported by refs. Very long article. Only a small portion checked for paraphrasing. Alt2 may need overchecking but Duffit5 is happy with it. Victuallers (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I checked the FN66 source which is supposed to support ALT2, and I don't see anything at either the archived link or the regular link that mentions the 1994 admission of girls. On the school's website, I did find a About Us → Heritage → Post War Expansion page which does, and could be substituted as an inline source citations for that specific fact (and maybe others), assuming a secondary source isn't available from the time. I think the "young girls" distinction of ALT1 (vs. the "girls" in ALT2) is perhaps misleading (for me, young girls could be six years old, which is not the case here), and the ALT1 source, from January 2007, is from a year and a half before the actual admission presumably took place and just says "girls". I think ALT1 needs a better source that nails down the actual first admission of girls younger than sixth form if this fact is to be used in DYK. In any event, ALT1 cannot be approved by Victuallers, who proposed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I found this newspaper article from 2011 which provides a timeline of coeducation at the school including the key dates, which supports Alt 1 and 2. Thanks for pointing out the problems with the original citations, which I've now corrected! Duffit talk 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this. I like that source, but I still have problems with ALT1's "young girls" attempted distinction, so I've struck it. (No reason another hook can't be written that includes Nelson, but this one is problematic.) I think the other hooks are fine—I still prefer ALT2—but there's a disagreement between the new source's "agreed to take girls from age 11 in 2008 and from age seven the following year" and the article's "and were in every year group by September 2010". If the youngest group starts at age seven, then rather than "September 2010", shouldn't the sentence simply say "2009"? (I don't think you can give the precision of a month without a more detailed source.) Once this has been addressed, I think the nomination will be ready to go. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "in every year group by 2010" assertion and replaced it with the wording in the new source. Duffit talk 16:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Duffit5, unfortunately you can't use wording that copies or even closely resembles a source. It's against Wikipedia rules: see WP:COPYVIO and WP:Close paraphrasing. You should always put information in your own words. What's there right now is not okay, and needs to be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset, I've completely reworded the sentence at fault to: "In 2008 the school governors decided to admit girls below the sixth form for the first time, first at age 11 and at age 7 a year later." Thanks! Duffit talk 10:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've just revised the sentence further, as the initial announcement (FN77) was January 15, 2007, the decision had to have been taken by then, and perhaps late in the previous year but not announced until then. Under the circumstances, giving the year of the decision (as opposed to the implementation) isn't supported by sourcing, nor is the use of "board of governors", so I've removed those few words. I think the article's ready for another check; under the circumstances, I think a bit more close paraphrase checking is in order just to be safe, though as Duplication Detector is down I can't do it myself right now, and I'm probably going to be offline over the weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem, BlueMoonset. Thank you again for your help so far. Duffit talk 10:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This does need a conclusive meta review or an approval. This is a GA with dozens of references. Can we identify the problem that is holding it up or approve it. I am quite happy with it, as is. Victuallers (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)









Articles created/expanded on March 2[edit]

Chicagoland (TV series)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough and nominally long enough. QPQ is done. The hook is interesting (it enticed me to review this nom), but unfortunately it is not actually supported by sourcing. The source is a reviewer's informed opinion regarding the benefits to CNN from doing a series like this one; it is not a factual statement regarding CNN's decision process. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I have concerns about article content that appears to be nothing more than uncritical repetition of breezy promotional content. I refer to phrasing like "the award-winning filmmakers", and particularly to the long quotation at the end of the "Background" section (the quotation preceded by the words "According to a May 2013 article in Entertainment Weekly the CNN press release described the show as follows") and the entire "Synopsis" section (which doesn't identify a source, doesn't say anything of substance -- it's actually hard to figure out what it means, and reads like it might have been copied from a press blurb). (Anyway, why does this series need a "synopsis"? It's not a work of fiction that has a plot.) If deductions are made for direct quotations and promotional blather, I believe that the prose content of this article would not meet the 1500-character requirement. Please add some more substance, make sure everything is sourced, and lose the promotional verbiage. As for the hook, either find a solid basis for the hook fact or find a new hook. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
IIRC, the synopsis came from this edit by Robert Moore. The series is not really a news show, so presenting a plot synopsis is probably not unlike some reality television shows. The long quote was included to demonstrate the intent of the show before it was actually filmed and produced. It serves a purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, the "synopsis" was unsourced and promotional in its tone. I removed it. That long (three sentences long, about 350-400 characters) quotation from a CNN public relations blurb also has no place in an encyclopedia article. Short bits from the quotation might be appropriate to quote, but articles should be original content, not strung-together collections of long quotations. The "synopsis" did mention that the series was looking at several current issues in Chicago and at Rahm Emanuel's role and performance in leading the city and addressing its issues. There are now plenty of published reviews that discuss the subject matter of the series, critique its depiction of Emanuel, compare the focus on Emanuel to Brick City's focus on Cory Booker, etc. Those reviews could be cited as sources of information about the show. (Put another way: Some reviews that are now used only as sources for the long direct quotations that make up about one-third of the "Reception" section could also be good sources for factual descriptive information about the series.)
BTW, I've beefed up the statements about the CNN motivation for this series. I think the hook might be supported if you can wedge "24-hour" into the article. The Variety piece may also help to support the hook (although, like the Hollywood Reporter piece, it doesn't specifically say that this is why CNN is doing what it is doing). --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't the sources for news cycle support 24-hour news cycle. I just changed the link to avoid the redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll accept the hook, now that the article uses the words that appear in the hook. That leaves a need to deal with my other concern (briefly stated): "Please add some more substance, make sure everything is sourced, and lose the promotional verbiage." My concern is related to policy regarding promotional content and an excessive use of quotations that is tantamount to plagiarism. Also see rule 2.d and supplementary rule D7. It shouldn't be hard to add some content in your own words (but based on sources) about the subject matter of the series. It also shouldn't be hard to trim the promotional wording borrowed from sources and the length of direct quotations (not to mention the padding that comes from verbiage like "According to a May 2013 article in Entertainment Weekly the CNN press release described the show as follows"). I've not yet looked for close paraphrasing because I'm hoping that it will be edited out before that review is done. --Orlady (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's been almost two weeks, and no action has been taken on the above. The Reception section is 1190 prose characters of the article's 2574, but 879 of these are in long direct quotes, which is far too much, as Orlady noted. Action is needed soon on the issues she raised to keep this nomination open. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I took out a bit of the promotional verbiage (per WP:PEA), trimmed the one example of padding noted above, and blockquoted per WP:QUOTE. The article is now 1485 prose characters, too short to qualify. This might be a good time to add the additional substance Orlady requested, and take another look at the other issues she raised; the Reception section was only one issue of the many she touched on. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Orlady asked for additional substance; the only addition (made after my most recent comment, but not noted here) was to basically copy some production info already in the body to the lede of the article, so it's now repeated. How about some new facts or commentary? And have you addressed all the other issues she raised? That's also needed before she can finish the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)





Jumper (pornographic film)

Moved to mainspace by George Ho (talk). Self nominated at 23:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC).

Symbol confirmed.svg Just barely long enough, history and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There are accuracy problems with both hooks and the article itself, which is why I'm pulling this back. The ALT1 hook, which had been promoted, claims that the reviewer said that the voice resembles the Wizard; in fact, he's complaining about tech issues in the film, where the voice's intermittent reverb is similar to Oz, not that the voice itself is. Indeed, this second Reception sentence (where ALT1 comes from) is a puzzle; there's no sense that both of the Kinnick quotes are about problems with the film (though the first one has to be so). I also think the Reception section is far too reliant on quotes, but when it tries to paraphrase it instead misleads: the original commentary says that the movie was "modeled somewhat" on Heaven Can't Wait, while the article and hook's "somewhat resembles" gives the impression of a closer adherence that the sources don't indicate is warranted. (Is there any similarity beyond that of a dead guy coming back to fix lives in the present?) For a new hook, something could possibly be done with the "well-developed" part of the Escoffier review, possibly in conjunction with his "some degree of acting" quote. It's too bad that Escoffier doesn't actually compliment the actors; if he had, then the hook could mention Yeager's acting (or you could do one just using the Kinnick review), but I think hooks that don't rely on a single commentary carry more weight. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I did rephrases in article and on hooks. George Ho (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've just done some editing of the article to improve the phrasing and accuracy of what's being said, so as to increase the fidelity to the sources. That being done, I don't think ALT1 is tenable any more—the so-called resemblance with The Wizard of Oz was describing a problem with Jumper's technical issue, and doesn't mean they actually resemble each other, just that it's a way to explain the problem quickly to the reader. I'm suggesting a different take:
  • ALT2: ... that according to one author, the award-winning 1991 gay pornographic film Jumper had a "well-developed" script that needed "some degree of acting in addition to skills as an adult performer"?
I'm still not happy with the original hook as modified, even though I've added a "was" to it to improve the grammar. I'll leave it to another reviewer to decide which of the hooks are reasonable, or George could propose a new ALT altogether if he isn't happy with ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)






Articles created/expanded on March 5[edit]

The World's Billionaires

Bill Gates in 2013

  • Reviewed: Rajani Pandit, Keith Brown (pole vaulter)
  • Comment: I am working on creating articles for each year's list. Given a little more time, I will continue to add years to the hook with the goal of getting it listed here. So, feel free to be slow in reviewing this. :) Alternatively, I can break it up and pick more diverse facts. More QPQs will be added to the list soon.

The World's Billionaires 5x expanded, all others new articles, by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg This is not a full review, just a comment. The 2014, 2013, and 2012 lists do not qualify as new because they were spun-off of an existing article. For those three to be eligible, they have to be expanded fivefold from the initial version that was copied from the main article. (See 1a) Altamel (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A common sense exception should apply here. I wrote the text at the main article originally in the five day time frame, realized there would be too much text at the main article once I was done, then moved it to the individual articles. All of the text is new (or was when I nominated it originally, now a couple weeks old) and was written by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure I can agree with that. The way I interpret the guidelines (and I'm new to reviewing, so I may be wrong) is that text cannot be double counted, since DYK recognizes new content. Even if I were to apply your exception and count 2014, 2013, and 2012 as "new" articles, then their text would have to be excluded from the 5x calculation for the main article, and the main article, in turn, would not have been expanded five times. This is a complicated situation, and you might want to ask a DYK regular for a second opinion. Altamel (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Second opinion: As Altamel notes, the same material from the main article was subsequently moved to the individual articles and expanded there, and can't be counted as new for both. So a new 1500-character year section in the main article cannot count toward the expansion total in the main article and also as part of a new 2500-character year article. The only way all the articles could be used is if the individual years were 5x expanded after they were spun off. I think it could be argued either to use the original article and not the various years, or the individual years but not the main article, given that all the work was done within the five days. In both cases, the same hook could be used, but the bolded articles would vary. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If I only get one or the other, naturally I would prefer to get credit for the multiple yearly articles instead of the one main article. I would, however like to point out that the main article was 1052 characters before my first edit. It is now 11059 characters. Excluding the 2014/2013/2012 text (which is actually not 100% duplicate), it would still be 6262 characters, a 6X expansion. Anyway, I am OK with not bolding the main article if that is the only way to get credit for the yearly articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)








I'm Gonna Get You (Bizarre Inc song)

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 13:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article was of sufficient length as of 8 March 2014 (work on it began on 4 March), and appears sufficiently referenced. The hook is of appropriate length, but I don't think the article clearly states that the song which is its subject "inspired" The Black Eyed Peas' song. The article merely says that the song was one of will.i.am's "favourite songs" and that he "played [the] song for the power" in the bridge part of "Boom Boom Pow". — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about - this revision, which was the state it was in when I nominated it in, had 1,684 characters according to DYK check?--Launchballer 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
There isn't any problem with the length of the article – as I said, "[t]he article was of sufficient length". However, either the issue concerning the referencing of the hook needs to be addressed, or the hook should be reworded so that it is in line with the text of the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Then why use that icon... anyway, I've fixed the article.--Launchballer 09:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg (for ALT1): Because, as far as I am aware, that icon indicates the hook is not ready for DYK. Anyway, I have had a look at the references you added, and note that they indicate that "I'm Gonna Get You" inspired part of "Boom Boom Pow", not the whole song, so I've done a minor edit to the article and think that the following alternative hook would be fine for DYK:
ALT1: ... that part of The Black Eyed Peas' song "Boom Boom Pow" was inspired by Bizarre Inc's "I'm Gonna Get You"?
Also, I just completed a general copyedit of the article and noticed that there are two references which are citations of other Wikipedia articles. This goes against WP:CIRCULAR, so please visit those articles, retrieve the reliable third-party references supporting the information in question, and insert the references into this article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
My logic for including those references was that it was cleaner than copying several references over, but seeing how many more hit records sample the song, I've removed it and at a later date will expand that article. I should point out that you are mistaken with the use of icons:
  • Symbol confirmed.svg should be used when the article is ready to go.
  • Symbol voting keep.svg should be used where there are offline references and the reviewer takes them in good faith. As I have cited inlay notes, this should be used here when it is approved.
  • Symbol question.svg should be used when there are minor fixes.
  • Symbol possible vote.svg should be used when there are more serious errors.
  • Symbol delete vote.svg should be used when there isn't a snowball's chance of hell of it making it to the front page.
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg should be used when a new reviewer is called for. As you have suggested an ALT, this one is currently necessary.--Launchballer 13:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Symbol redirect vote 4.svg OK, thanks for pointing out the correct use of the icons. Just highlighting here that the ALT1 hook needs review by a second reviewer, as you mentioned. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - a QPQ is also required as Launchballer has far in excess of five DYK credits. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.--Launchballer 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT1 still needs reviewing by an independent reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)






Articles created/expanded on March 6[edit]

Boschetto v. Hansing

Created/expanded by Anshulmwiki (talk). Nominated by Malikepolat (talk) at 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

  • I got the hook into a proper DYK format. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook is sourced to reliable sources and I have detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There are a number of policy issues with this article that have caused the hook to be removed from prep: all of the sources are primary—the information is exclusively taken directly from court decisions, with no use of the secondary sources that are Wikipedia's mainstay. In violation of DYK norms, there is no sourcing whatever for the very large Background section or for the Appellate Court's holding section that follows. There's also an external link in the final paragraph of the Interactive websites subsection. Finally, as has been noted in WT:DYK#"that you are safe and just a contract is not enough to make you suable?" discussion, "you are safe" isn't explained at all in the article, and is not supported: who is supposed to be safe and why? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)



Sutton tube

A Sutton tube with its cavity removed

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 20:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size, all fine. The article has three unreferenced paragraphs - please fix (marked in the article). Also, please clarify in the article what Rotterdam Gerät is. I read the article, and the one about H2S radar, and I think the term means a copy of the radar captured by the Germans - but if som this should be clarified in both articles, and possibly in the hook. If I am right, the following hook may be better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Simply removing the redundant "radar". Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is "captured" part of the link? The link is to "H2S radar", not to an article or section involving a capture. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to explain what the Rotterdam Gerät is, as the article(s) I read don't seem to do it clearly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if perhaps that single unit is famous enough to deserve it's own article? It certainly meets any definition of NOTE/GNG, but would the reader be better served by a section in the main H2S or a separate article entirely? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's notable and we can write 250+ words on it, I'd say make it a new article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: It seems that the creator doesn't understand, or does not want to understand, my request: please see User_talk:Maury_Markowitz#Template:Fact and User_talk:Piotrus/Archive_48#Please.2C_be_specific.21. Perhaps another reviewer can help him out? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on March 7[edit]

Penny4NASA

Created by Nmillerche (talk). Self nominated at 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment I'm preparing to review, but would like to suggest an alternate hook, as support for the current one is vague.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article is long enough, free of close paraphrasing concerns per DD, new when nominated, cites sources according to rules, is neutral in tone, and so on. I'm worried about notability, though, since none of the sources seem to be secondary and independent. I can't find anything in the news about this organization other than a few letters to the editor. There's nothing in the DYK reviewing rules that forbids this, as far as I can see, though, so I'm not sure what to recommend. Perhaps a more experienced reviewer than I could take a look at things or offer advice?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK rules require an article to meet all the core policies, including notability. I share your concerns about this article; it's sourced to blogs, podcasts, government websites, YouTube, and Penny4NASA.org, and I can't find any better sources online. I don't think it's notable enough right now to sustain a stand-alone article, although some of this information could be merged into Neil deGrasse Tyson. If User:Nmillerche disagrees, the easiest way to settle the matter would be to AfD the article and see if it survives. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Some of the information is stated in the Neil deGrasse Tyson article, but perhaps some of that could be expanded upon, provided due weight is applied. I do not disagree with your concerns. Sometimes the best way to gauge whether or not an article meets the required guidelines, especially if it has been in progress for quite a while, is to gain feedback from other editors. Nmillerche (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on March 9[edit]

Nick Dupree

Dupree in 2004

  • ... that Nick Dupree (pictured) created the campaign "Nick's Crusade", which resulted in a special program for up to 30 ventilator-dependent Alabamians to continue home care after they turn 21 years old?

Created by Newyorkadam (talk). Self nominated at 22:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good - sufficient length and recent enough. Hook is interesting and cited. We're good. Go Phightins! 02:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg What's with citing his Wikipedia user page? For him editing Wikipedia, sure, but what about his disease? Wikipedia is not a reliable source for that. Nowhere close. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pinging Wizardman and Secret to weigh in on the matter. We discussed this; I cannot remember, however, whether we agreed that it should only be for the fact that the edits, or for other items. Personally, I have no problem with it being used for everything, except for perhaps this: Dupree has an unknown muscular disorder believed to be related to the metabolic cycle and Carnitine.[9]. Go Phightins! 00:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering this is related to medical diagnosis, and central to the reason for his activism (and thus notability) something more solid is needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a different source regarding his medical diagnosis: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-31/invalid-new-yorker-s-pals-keep-life-saving-gear-running --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • He himself wrote the content on his userpage, and evidence from other sources proves that he wrote the userpage. I believe WP:IAR applies. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • Orlady's source is much more reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article is weak; it only minimally qualifies for DYK. There's more content out there that can be used to craft a better article. Moreover, sources like this one lead me to think that he did not campaign for a special program for up to a certain limited number of people, as the article and hook currently imply. Rather, the combination of his advocacy and a lawsuit he filed led to a change in the state's rules that was expect to result in benefits for about 25 to 30 people. --Orlady (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Orlady: The hook does not imply that he campaigned for a limited number of people, it says that it resulted in it for a limited number of people. And I'll work on adding moar content. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • Newyorkadam: The hook says that his actions led to a "special program" for "up to 30 people". That wording implies that enrollment in the "program" was capped. You may not have intended the words to be read that way, but that's what they imply. In fact, it appears that about 25 to 30 people were estimated to be eligible for the program, and the number was not capped. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hadn't looked at it that way, but you're not wrong. How about "... for around 30 people ..." or "... for about 30 people (at the time) ... ". Go Phightins! 12:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Frane Selak

  • ... that Frane Selak claims to have been almost drowned twice, blown up, set on fire, fallen into a gorge, as well as been sucked through an open airplane door, hit by a bus, and has won the lottery?

Created by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

Symbol delete vote.svg As far as I can see from the article history, this is not new. Thanks, Matty.007 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • If you bothered to look at the article history, you would be able to see that there was a PROD tag added in 2009 and a magical page creation in 2014 that involves new text and nothing of the old one. Long story short, someone restored the page's history. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol possible vote.svg Please don't be rude, I looked at the history, as my statement above shows. What I saw was a PROD added, then staying there until your expansion of the page. In addition, you would do well to discuss the editor who added it what he wants doing for the tag to be removed. Actually, looking at the logs, when the article was re-created, it was restored. I think this qualifies as creation, given that you changed the content though. Thanks, Matty.007 18:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I wasn't meaning to, but I figured it might have shown up as suspicious enough to check out. Regardless, let me know what you think about the whole possible falsification of these events part, as we could refactor it into the fact that he has become an urban legend based on what are likely tall tales. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I think you should discuss the tag with the editor who added it, then I will review the article. Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please rephrase the following:

  • jumped the tracks and plunged
  • because of a faulty fuel pump,and he escaped just before the fuel tank exploded (car accident 1): nothing is mentioned about a fuel pump malfunction in this accident. Thanks, Matty.007 18:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The fuel pump was mentioned in the Cracked article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
      • It doesn't say it was faulty, merely that it was about to explode. Matty.007 09:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
          • No, I don't think it says about the fuel pump malfunctioning in any ref. Matty.007 11:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Oh yeah, I fixed this yesterday, so it should be good now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Doing a bit of a review: the article is large enough, and has not detectable copyright problems. Given that it is new enough and referenced and no obvious non-neutrality problems, the article itself is OK. QPQ is good. However the alt1 hook is not in the article, as the article does not call him the world's luckiest man, even if references do. Otherwise I agree that Alt1 sounds much better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)



Purnendu Dastidar

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Review comments: Article appears to meet length, newness, inline citation, and hook requirements, however, all but one of the sources are not online and so must be taken AGF. You'll need to fix the link to Ayub Kahn as it links to a disambiguation page.
A problem with the article that you should be able to fix is that any reader unfamiliar with history may have a great deal of difficulty determining why Mr. Dastidar spent so long in prison, because the article does not clearly explain this man's legal problems — why he was jailed for so long is unclear — one can infer it given the political maelstrom of the times, but reader shouldn't have to infer it. For any reader familiar with history, the struggle for independence from colonial rule was obviously a strife-ridden, perilous time, and the likely reason for Dastidar's troubles, however, that fact is not spelled out in the article, thus the article gives Dastidar's experience no explicit context. Stating the context of his life and the charges on which he was held and/or convicted (rightly or wrongly), with accessible cites, would go a long away to making the article paint a better picture of the pathos of his experience, and give the hook a fish to catch. A lesser issue is the staccato nature of the sentences. Another editor should re-review once the main issue is addressed. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The link to Ayub Khan is fixed now. However, I think the article outlines well the reasons for the imprisonment, "He was a member of the Chittagong Jugantar Party, and took part in guerrilla actions against British targets together with Surya Sen, Kalpana Dutta and Pritilata Waddedar.[4][5] In 1931, during his student years in Calcutta, he was imprisoned.[1] The British authorities charged him with being an associate of Surya Sen.", "Following the declaration of Martial Law in 1958, Dastidar was once again jailed.", "Along with other communist leaders, Dastidar was jailed at the time of the September 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. He was released in 1969, in connection with the ongoing mass protests which forced Ayub Khan to release all political prisoners." --Soman (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must disagree. Restating here what the article says does nothing to rectify what the article doesn't say: for (one) example, why was it considered an arrestable offense to be an associate of Surya Sen? This is the sort of thing that makes explicit that which is currently implicit — the difference makes all the difference. Consider that you have knowledge that a general reader may not have — you ask the reader to make inferences rather than giving the reader specific facts about why Dastidar (is it Dastidar or Dastigar?) spent so long imprisoned. The general reader needs explicit context and explicit explanations for extraordinary claims (that he spent a great deal of his life imprisoned). For every time he was arrested and imprisoned, you need to give a reason, with citation, and the reader also needs context: nowhere does the article mention that his life was lived against the backdrop of the national struggle for independence from colonial rule. Sctechlaw (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
But it is said that "took part in guerrilla actions against British targets together with Surya Sen, Kalpana Dutta and Pritilata Waddedar". It is quite clear from context wherein the legal problem would have risen. In the second case, it is said that the arrest followed after Martial Law (whereby the government could cook up any excuse to arrest him), and in the last case it was in connection with arrests of other communist leaders at the time of the war. All the instances have references. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on March 12[edit]

Flying Norwegians

  • ... that to keep their studio and support careers separate, the Flying Norwegians used their English name for their own studio albums, and the Norwegian translation Flyvende Nordmenn when supporting other artists?
  • ALT1:... that the Flying Norwegians was formed by two members of the legendary Norwegian rock group Saft?

Created by Lilduff90 (talk). Self nominated at 18:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Unable to check for close paraphrasing in foreign-language refs, so sources accepted AGF. The main issue with the article is lack of citations. Per Rule D2, there must be at least one cite per paragraph.
  • The first hook is over 208 characters; the second hook is fine (I tweaked it slightly). It appears this is the nominator's first DYK nomination, so no QPQ needed. Yoninah (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've just pinged Lilduff90's talk page again; it's been over two weeks without a response, and he has edited in the interim. I'm also suggesting an ALT2 variant of the original hook, which is too long for DYK and has been struck. (This new version is 185 characters.)
  • ALT2: ... that to keep their careers separate, the Flying Norwegians used their English name for their own albums, and the Norwegian translation Flyvende Nordmenn when supporting other musicians?
I hope we hear from the nominator/creator soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on March 13[edit]

Newark mayoral election, 2014

Created/expanded by Djflem (talk). Self nominated at 19:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg First, you shouldn't take it for granted that the readers of the hook (who will see it at the main page) will know who is Cory Booker. Provide some context in it. Second, "will be the first" may sound noteworthy if that means the first of a series; but it is the only election that will be ever referred as the election after his resignation. And third, the second paragraph in the lead may be borderline with NPOV, because it reads as if wikipedia was endorsing those opinions. Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. I see you have used them as your QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Guapas, but you have not assessed the above article on the criteria for a review. Please do that and if you would like to suggest an ALT please do that, too. Djflem (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Neutrality and an appropiate hook are part of the criteria. I will complete the review when those points are fixed Cambalachero (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article and is neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people.Djflem (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Newark mayoral election, 2014 w/ regard to what "may be borderline".Djflem (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I do not agree with the nomination as it currently stands. I request someone else to review it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)





Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland

  • Reviewed: Put here

Improved to Good Article status by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Promoted to GA on 13 March. Hook length is fine. I've added a link for attainted; you might want to add one for the Tower of London too. Google Books won't me see p. 770 of the source for the congratulations part of the hook, so I can't check that. I also can't see the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for the attainted or Tower part. I can take the hook on good faith, or perhaps you can offer alternative sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've found a link to the ODNB that will let me read it. I can see where it says he was posthumously attainted. I can't see where it says his son was taken to the Tower. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg There's some word-for-word from the ODNB:
  • WP: On 30 May 1460 he was nominated to a wide-ranging commission of oyer and terminer ... to deal with all treasons and insurrections in Northumberland; a few days later, on 3 July, he was granted Salisbury's Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Cambridgeshire lands on a twelve year lease.
  • ODBN: "On 30 May 1460 he was nominated to a wide-ranging commission of oyer and terminer to deal with all treasons and insurrections in Northumberland; a few days later he secured a twelve-year lease of Salisbury's estates in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Cambridgeshire."
  • I know it's hard to rephrase things like that, but that's too close; it needs a rewrite or in-text attribution, perhaps both. It would make sense to go through the article to check for anything else like that, then perhaps you can resubmit. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the review. Let me have a look at things: first, I have found a source. I will have a look at paraphrasing either today or in the next couple of days. Thanks, Matty.007 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to fix the wording, but there are some issues with referencing which I am attempting to resolve. Thanks, Matty.007 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to note, discussion is ongoing at the article talk. Thanks, Matty.007 19:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No reply from the editor who raised the issues on the talk page, so good for another review I think. QPQ done: Annette Winkler. Thanks, Matty.007 11:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Now there is an issue with the number of the baron, is it 2 3 4 or 5? This needs to be sorted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 3, but I think his father (and son?) were also called Henry Percy, so a bit confusing. I am just sorting out some referencing issues at the minute. Thanks, Matty.007 11:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed. Thanks, Matty.007 16:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on March 14[edit]

1949 Sun Bowl controversy, David Showell

Aerial view of Sun Bowl Stadium on the campus of the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP)

Created by Jaironerao (talk), Alant1337 (talk), Kmgarb8 (talk), and Dodger67 (talk). Nominated by I am One of Many (talk) at 23:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

  • I don't think I should be credited for this, all I did was to review the AfC submission, approve it, do some minor cleanup and then I split out the David Showell biography. My contribution was minimal and basically just technicalities. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought about it and my view is that the article would not exist if you had not made that decision, so I thought you should be included as an author. I can remove you if you think that it is the right thing to do. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review of both articles and the proposed hook needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)



Triclocarban

  • ... that triclocarban, an antimicrobial commonly used in soaps and plastic, is 100 to 1,000 times more effective in killing algae, crustaceans, and fish than it is in killing microbes?

5x expanded by Row131er (talk), Brichr1520 (talk), EDDendocrinelover1 (talk). Nominated by Row131er (talk) at 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Though the hook is very interesting, and is supported by a citation within the article and by the source material, there is a dispute template on the article that must be resolved before this article can be considered for a DYK. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This article appears to be the subject of educational assignment. In the recent past there have been problems with chemistry articles expanded as part of class projects in which much of the added content was inaccurate, unbalanced, confusing, or otherwise problematic. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but I would recommend waiting until the assignment is over and then getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry or Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals participants before this page is featured on the main page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. The dispute template has been removed by nominator—see discussion on Talk:Triclocarban—so any reviewer should carefully check for neutrality; there doesn't seem to have been amelioration of the issues raised initially, and the template removal may well be premature. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on March 15[edit]

Uprising in Montenegro

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Peacemaker67 (talk). Self nominated at 09:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

  • G'day, I'm afraid that this article has two significant issues for DYK. Firstly it doesn't meet NPOV, as the sources appear to have been cherrypicked to put the communists in a bad light, and in one case the source doesn't support the material. At least two very good examples of this jumped out at me on a quick read, both of which I have explained on the article talkpage. Secondly, the grammar and spelling is quite poor. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The spelling and grammar has been addressed through a c/e, and my objection on those grounds is withdrawn. The source/text problem identified on my first look has also been addressed. But there are a number of NPOV issues remaining, which I am attempting to work through. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67 did not prove his NPOV violation accusations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I have had to start addressing them, as Ad refused to accept there were any issues at all. One of those that needed addressing was that Ad used one local Tito-era source to place the "communist terror" in the lead and main body, but it was (and remains) the only source he has provided for that placement. His placement of that information in the lead and the chronology of the main body made it appear that the "communist terror" occurred before the Italian counter-offensive, not after it. Even on his reading of the academic consensus (highly dubious in my view), this was wrong. He claims it does not matter. This type of approach to reliable sourcing and NPOV is not appropriate for a DYK article, and I recommend against it being used until it can be fully addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67 failed to present a single source that directly support his opinion that communist terror in Montenegro began only after the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja in December 1941, nor there is anything particularly POV if the "communist terror" occurred before the Italian counter-offensive, not after it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Your failure to understand why an article should be accurate and NPOV is part of the problem with this article, and underlines the reason it really is not up-to-speed for DYK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The burden is on you and you failed to present a single source for your position. Additionally, it is incorrect that I "refused to accept there were any issues at all". I asked another editor to copy edit the article and corrected the mistake in page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I encourage anyone reviewing this nomination to read the article talk page, and not take Ad's word for it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by new reviewer, with close attention paid to neutrality, given the above review and talk page discussion. (Peacemaker67 is now included as a significant editor, so someone new is needed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Communist Party of India (Marxist) candidates in the Indian general election, 2014

Left Front rally in Kolkata, February 9, 2014

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 01:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is long enough and new enough, and adequately supported by footnotes. My spot-checking did not identify any issues of copyvio or close paraphrasing. QPQ is done. The hook fact is supported by the article and cited sources; I added the words "the actor" to make it more interesting. I suggest trimming the length of the bolded link (e.g., to "... that the actor Innocent is one of the candidates of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in this year's parliamentary election?"). The image should not be used on the main page -- it has been nominated for deletion at Commons. --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)




Balloonfest '86

Created by Ktr101 (talk), Varnent (talk). Nominated by Ktr101 (talk) at 14:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length and date checks out. But the hook is a bit problematic. The article itself doesn't use the term 'indirectly caused'. And as per the deaths, none of the refs establish that the balloons led to death, just that the balloons impeded a rescue operation that might have been able to save the two men. Also, not sure if 'viralforest' is WP:RS. --Soman (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Varnent, could you address the last one? In terms of the hook, feel free to replace it, as I thought that would be the best way to address them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not feel strongly about that source, and will find some alternatives. Also, I think it is worth including the two deaths in some way. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 06:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It's been over three weeks since the above, and I don't see any alternative sourcing or action to deal with the issues raised. I've adjusted this template to reflect that the article has been moved to Balloonfest '86, and struck the original hook due to the objections noted above; a new ALT hook needs to be created in addition to work on the other issues for this to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Greg and I were in Berlin this weekend, and I brought this up to him in person on Saturday. @Varnent:, care to finish off this giant task? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 ok. --Soman (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg ALT1 appears to be fundamentally inaccurate and a bit sensationalist. The boaters went out on Friday, and were reported missing by their families on Saturday after they failed to return. The Coast Guard began their search just after the start of the Balloonfest, at a point when it is highly likely that the boaters had long since drowned, especially given the theory of what happened to them as reported in the story. To refer to them as "drowning"—that is, still alive but about to die—at the point that the Coast Guard helicopter got to the area is not adequately backed up by the sources. I've struck it, and unless the hook points out that the boaters went missing the day before, or is more generic (interfered with a Coast Guard search), I don't think this fact is usable. (I should also mention that the use of the second source in the second Consequences paragraph, to support the hook fact that the Coast Guard couldn't distinguish between balloons and boaters upon arriving at the scene, is highly misleading: that source doesn't talk about the Coast Guard at all.) There is plenty in the article that has potential for an interesting hook, so I'm looking forward to seeing an ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The idea that air crews rescue people during the 10 minutes or so that it requires to drown is ridiculous and I think perverse that that meaning is being assigned as unsourced. The core of the hook is that they could not find anything because the sea was full of balloons. I suggest that changing "drowned boaters" to "boaters who drowned" is the kind of change that is required. I object to the idea that hooks can be withdrawn without being replaced. Minor changes are sufficient here and I worry that we will soon have a scoring system for the meta reviewers to work out who has disrupted the process more. Can you please repair rather than demolish. The process of creating Wikipedia has errors. The only way to stop the errors is to stop the process. The way to assist the process is to repair and improve. Victuallers (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on March 16[edit]

Edward Eugene Claplanhoo

Created by Scanlan (talk). Self nominated at 03:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article created by Scanlan on March 16, 2014. Size 7,375 characters of readable prose. Well supported by inline citations. The only problem is a few lines taken verbatim from the source. Please fix it, here's the link to what I've found. Poeticbent talk 04:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Lines taken verbatim is a serious matter (see WP:COPYVIO), and it's been over three weeks without any action taken, including eleven days since a ping on the user's talk page. I'll give this two more days; if the issue is not addressed by then, I don't see any alternative but to close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The passage that was identified as problematic is presented in the article as a direct quotation. It's a rather long quotation, but I think it is appropriate to keep due to the unusual way the information is expressed. Everything else checks out as OK. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Samuel Wear

Created/expanded by Jwear21 (talk), GenQuest (talk). Nominated by GenQuest (talk) at 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, big enough (4100+ characters), and inline citations on every paragraph, except lead paragraph. The claim in the lead paragraph, that Wear was a co-founder of the State of Franklin, is not found in the main article text, so it needs a citation. AGF offline sources. One external link was broken, but attached to a statement supported by another citation, so I commented it out. No plagiarism detected.
  • hook 1: Symbol possible vote.svg This claim does not have a citation attached to it.
  • comment: this is cited in the body of article, but not in the lead (per wp:lede). I can add one if necessary. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • alt 1: Symbol possible vote.svg This claim is in the lead paragraph, but no citation is given.
  • comment: this is cited in the body of article, but not in the lead (per wp:lede). I can add one if necessary. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • alt 2: Symbol question.svg The claim has a citation, but I do not see anything in it about holding the position for 32 years.
  • comment: Withdrawn due to loss of the reference link (now a {{dead link}}); see the new, re-worded ALT3. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Cmprince (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)





Conro Fiero House, Morris H. Whitehouse

Created/expanded by EagerToddler39 (talk). Self nominated at 23:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC).








Articles created/expanded on March 17[edit]

I Got U

  • ... that Annie Mac replayed Duke Dumont's "I Got U" halfway through because she couldn't get enough of it?

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

  • * (alt1)... that half way through playing Duke Dumont's "I Got U", DJ Annie Mac restarted the song because she couldn't get enough of it?
I found the first hook tricky to understand - this may be better Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol confirmed.svg Date and length fine. I was initially unsure of Earmilk as an RS but since it is used on other pages, I am satisfied that it is. Alt1 is better. QPQ not needed as creator only has 1 credit. Alt1 Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg No, Launchballer has well in excess of 30 DYKs, so a QPQ is definitely required. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone better fix the QPQ check tool then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
As that tool is getting more and more reliable a manual check of archives is in order. I have 37 credits. My QPQ for this is Yes check.svg done.--Launchballer 19:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg - Launchballer you can't yet claim QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/List of Olympians and Paralympians from Peel. First, you did not sign to indicate which review is yours. Second, your review (I'm assuming it's yours) does not include a full DYK check. What about sourcing? And who is it that proposed ALT4? Which hooks have you checked? And which hook/s are you okaying? A more thorough job is needed there. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

Natalia Poklonskaya

Natalia Poklonskaya

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk), Dainomite (talk), Aldnonymous (talk), Starship.paint (talk), Tktru (talk), Benlisquare (talk), Adelgado1313 (talk), RonaldDuncan (talk), Ging287 (talk). Nominated by Moscow Connection (talk) at 20:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment - regarding content: 1) Definitely don't link to Internet meme. Link to List of Internet phenomena. 2) I don't like "sensation" either, perhaps a rephrase is needed. 3) It's sourced that it's not only in Japan, but also China. I'm looking for a source that says "worldwide". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a few amendments. "Japan" will do for now, unless you can find another source for it. Currently the sources we have say Japan. --benlisquareTCE 09:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There are sources for China I previously added. See references 13 abd 15, IBT and Guangming Online. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you can't find a ref, we could just make the hook say "became an Internet phenomenon in Japan and China". We will need to make do with what is available. --benlisquareTCE 09:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the amendments! --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Eh, since you thanked me for the amendments, I am going to make the China amendment as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I think "China" makes it longer and harder to read. Also, look at the views. She's not that viral in China. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Views? What do you mean? --benlisquareTCE 05:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
English (59,514 on 24th), Russian (just look, 72,998 yesterday), Japanese (10,459 on 25th), Chinese (1,662 yesterday), Spanish (7,473 on 25th). --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Chinese Wikipedia, Chinese people don't use it, only Taiwanese and Hongkongers do. Wikipedia was blocked by the Chinese government for many years, and Chinese people don't use Wikipedia nowadays, the large majority use Baidu Baike. It's also a nationalism thing, think of how Russians use Vkontakte instead of Facebook - it's a national pride thing in China to prefer domestic sites over foreign ones, hence why Tudou and Youku have more Chinese users than YouTube.

Natalia is trending on Chinese social networks such as Tencent QQ and Sina Weibo, and plenty of the art on Pixiv is created by Chinese artists (I've had to communicate in Chinese for many of my OTRS attempts). --benlisquareTCE 05:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, you can play the page view card, but I can play the reference 13, 14 and 15 card? But anyway, how about my new comment at the bottom of the DYK. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Benlisquare, okay. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Natalia Poklonskaya

  • As of 2014-03-25 20:09 (UTC+11), the following images have officially been OTRS verified: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. --benlisquareTCE 09:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's maybe upload a different version of it, a version cropped to a square. (A special version to use for the DYK, under a different file name, cause now it is too small as a thumbnail.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. There's plenty of whitespace that can be removed from the sides. --benlisquareTCE 21:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you! (That was clever, I would never guessed to upload it like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe "moe fan art" instead of "moe-style fan art"? (Easier to read.)
    By the way, can someone maybe come up with a crazy play on words for the hook? The crazier it is, the more views the article will get. The current one is okay (the words "Prosecutor of Crimea" and "Internet phenomenon" draw attention), but still a bit boring. Now we only have one version, we should come up with something completely different to choose from. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Putting into use of this citation, how does this sound?

    ALT 2: ... that the Prosecutor of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, relies on her daughter to keep track of anime-style fan art of her (example pictured) on the internet?

    ...or something along those lines. "Anime" and "moe" can be interchangable, I picked anime in this case because our article on moe isn't really that great or easy for readers to understand. --benlisquareTCE 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't like ALT2... I think the current one is better cause "internet phenomenon" looks much more interesting. And she doesn't say in the source what ALT2 says. She actually says that she personally doesn't have time to care about what's happening cause she comes home late and doesn't have time at all. So it's like she knows but she doesn't even say she actually looks at anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - maybe change to worldwide instead of Japan and China? See new sources describing as... Gulf News: has become a sensation around the world. IBT: Her popularity appears to be growing in the West too. Maybe change the text of the DYK to "has become a worldwide Internet phenomenon"? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    "Worldwide" looks good. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's probably for the best. If we do keep Japan/China in there maybe something along the lines of "originated in..." but yeah. "worldwide" sounds good to me. —  dainomite   09:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, I've thought of something. April 1 is coming up soon, right? And DYK on Wikipedia is usually silly on April 1, right? Why not make a silly and awkward pun? Something like ALT3: ... that the prose-cute-or of the Republic of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, annexed the hearts of countless Japanese internet users, in defiance of the threat of international sanctions? --benlisquareTCE 14:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    I like it very much. There isn't much time left until April 1, but it doesn't have to be April 1. If we go with this hook, we should add a couple of sourced statements about Japanese people falling in love with her and about a threat of sanctions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    I beg you not to go for April 1 on this. There are just so many waiting and this seems lovely enough to go at any time. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you! You are right, it was a bad idea to go for April 1. Too much competition, it would be published wihout a picture and go unnoticed. (Also, I think an April 1 hook must be misleading, and this one isn't.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a BLP about a female public official in a geopolitically sensitive area, with a majority of the article currently devoted to anime focused on this woman's physical appearance. Mainpaging the article in its current state and with the current hook is not in the best interest of the reputation of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this man an authoritarian ruler? Wikipedia seems to say so. He is a living person, but we follow the word of third-party sources.
This scenery is beautiful, however it does not have any sexual implications. The abstract concept of beauty can refer to admiration of aesthetic or non-aesthetic qualities, and is not concretely affixed on human sexuality.
  • Yes, it is a BLP, but does that mean we should censor things that are well-covered in third-party reliable sources simply because some might find it objectable? On Wikipedia, we call many people dictators, even though they might personally object to such statements. We continue to call these people dictators, because the majority of third-party reliable sources refer to them as so.

    Furthermore, nowhere in the article does it mention anything about physical appearance. Quote: "She soon caught attention on the Internet because of her particular attractiveness amongst Japanese internet users", with a piped link to kawaii. She is adorned by people because of her mannerisms, behaviour, facial expressions and patterns of speech, in addition to her strong and important political position and ability to firmly speak her opinion, which provide a sense of moe and beauty in the eyes of these people. Whilst the article uses the word "beauty" (the original Japanese word is "美人すぎ"), this term is open, vague and flexible - the countryside of Tibet is beautiful, however I am not sexually attracted to grass fields, snow peaks and rock cliffs. You're making assumptions on things that aren't implicated in the article. --benlisquareTCE 04:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that the biography section currently takes up the majority of the article, not the Internet popularity section. Why does gender or "geopolitically sensitive area" matter? I don't understand. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I don't understand this "geopolitically sensitive area" reasoning here as well. Recently 1954 transfer of Crimea was passed through DYK and displayed on the front page, despite the current shenanigans in Crimea. In my opinion, I don't believe that these arguments are grounded in policy, logic or reason. --benlisquareTCE 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've never had any experience with DYK, so can I check how does this DYK process work exactly? We've had a lot of discussion on how to improve content, and one oppose vote. How far are we from getting this passed as a DYK? I say this because I might not have much time to contribute to this article any longer. There's a ban on my future edits on BLPs being discussed. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    We need a reviewer, someone will eventually come. The reviewer will read the article and check it against the requirements. The requirements we must remember when editing the article now are:
    1. The article must have minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.
    2. The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source.
    Read all the rules here: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide.
    There's nothing to worry about. The vote doesn't really matter as long as the article is okay. But I would still make the internet popularity section more encyclopedic and the gallery less conspicuous. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. The bulk of the above discussion is by the creators; there are BLP concerns expressed, so the reviewer should keep that in mind, along with the usual length, newness, sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, hook requirements, and other DYK review points. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT1. Length, date and hook checks out. Image is on Commons. Bloomberg, definitely RS, is the main source for the hook and checks out well. Not sure what the BLP issue would be, there is nothing derogatory in ALT1. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Just a note: I swapped out the picture that was originally submitted for another one that's also in the gallery. There is some rumbling in the Commons community about whether the fan art that is directly based off of the press conference is considered derivative work, and therefore, non-free. I replaced the image that was there, since it copied the pose and microphone setup of the press confrence, with one that still captured the 'press conference-ness', but wasn't based off of the video itself. TLDR: I swapped the image out in case Commons zaps the one that was there before. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I've swapped the image back cause we chose this one as the best. I think your reasoning is incorrect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Symbol question.svg Since the image swapped back has not been approved, I'm putting a temporary hold on this until Sven Manguard can comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't see any problem with the image. It has not been tageed for deletion at Commons. --Soman (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
              • BlueMoonset - The relevant discussion is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Natalia Poklonskaya, and until that is resolved, I won't personally push any image substantially similar to the press conference into a prep area (other people can if they want to), becuase I am concerned that the image might end up getting zapped. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
                • It won't get zapped that fast, even though there is discussion ongoing (and it's disputed as to whether they are derivatives, but let's not go that deep in right now). Discussions on Commons seem to happen very slowly, and Categories for Discussion on Commons take damn forever, I started this CfD at Commons on 27 September 2013, and it still hasn't closed; hence, I don't see the likelihood of anything being done for the duration where the DYK is taking place. That said, what is being discussed on Commons are allegations, and are not actually proven yet, so it would be unfair to assume that they are correct.

                  If we really do need to use a different image, then so be it. We've had previous community discussion on the talk page regarding which one everyone found preferable, though. --benlisquareTCE 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

                • It's been days, are we really having a deadlock over an image? The current CfD discussion on Commons is already leaning towards the idea that nothing is going to happen to the commonscat as a whole. That said, for the sake of getting this DYK nom out of limbo, if we really need to change an image at the last minute, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Saramoka.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Haiashi.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Kriss Sison.png and File:Natalia Poklonskaya by phanc002.jpg are unaffected by the discussion. That said, worrying over the present DYK image isn't necessary, and we shouldn't leave this nom hanging like this. --benlisquareTCE 13:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on March 21[edit]

José María Pinedo

Colonel José María Pinedo

  • Reviewed: Hilda Rix Nicholas, Chain boat .

Created by Wee Curry Monster (talk), DagosNavy (talk). Nominated by Wee Curry Monster (talk) at 22:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg nice article - where does it say he was "best known"? Victuallers (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Maybe
I see that hook fact is well sourced including this ref in the article. Article has enough refs. Image is not at commons and should not be used. Age is OK. Is someone can improve the hook quickly then we can move this one along. Victuallers (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Any particular reaspon for changing the hook, personally I'd prefer to keep it as is. In addition, I prefer to keep the images I upload local. After having numerous GFDL images deleted for various reasons I am not willing to risk having perfectly good images removed from articles. WCMemail 21:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The first hook includes numerous facts including "best known" which is unreferenced. (see comment above). I'm happy to hear your views on images, however I do not believe we use local images on the main page - the image used had no source (I have added one). If you want to use the first hook then can you make sure that is is easily clear where each aspect of the hook is sourced - although I do not believe that users are more like to click because he served at other places before the Falklands. Happy for you to put a new reviewer required symbol if you would prefer another view. Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK I've changed the hook slightly, removing the phrase you object to. The suggestion that only the Falklands are relevant is somewhat Anglocentric, South American history is of interest to other readers. Could you confirm whether the use of Commons images is your preference please as I can't find anything in policy that indicates this is a requirement. As I said I've lost confidence in putting my images on Commons as I've seen too many deleted, hence, I now (like many others) request they're kept local. WCMemail 08:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You may be right and lots of people are going to click because of his involvement in the War of Independence etc ... in which case "If you want to use the first hook then can you make sure that is is easily clear where each aspect of the hook is sourced ". I cannot see which ref is meant to indicate his involvement in the war of independance and I have not looked at the other bits of your hook. I'm not used to using images from local storage as you are - can you supply some support for your view? As the person who supplied the missing sourcing for the image it is not appropriate that I approve it. I know this is complex but it is not a simple hook. Victuallers (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually you didn't supply the "missing" source of the original image, it was from Commons as I originally stated and I've corrected the link. You googled and guessed it seems. How do I flag this for another reviewer please, every aspect is sourced in the article. WCMemail 16:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Request a different reviewer please, every aspect of the hook is sourced in the article. I have asked politely where in policy images have to be on commons and I can't find it anywhere, hence, I would like a separate opinion. Although Victuallers states above he provided the source of the image, he did not, the original image is on Commons where I found it. I modified it to a head and shoulders shot to remove a blog's watermark. WCMemail 17:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. Commons is not a source. this is Victuallers (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No, again the image on Commons was drawn to my attention. I've been open about where I got it from, it certainly wasn't from a blog I'd never read. So at this point I would appreciate you clarifying that comment. WCMemail 11:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Victuallers (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on March 22[edit]

Leftist errors

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self nominated at 17:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

  • There are serious problems with this article, including its title and sourcing, as well as with the way the info there has been summarised into the line deployed above about the "policy" and its name. The self-nominator here – who is the very recent creator of, and so far the only substantive contributor to, the page – is well aware of those issues. Please review the talk page before even thinking about approving this one for the front page. N-HH (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)





The Annihilation of Caste

Created by Gfosankar (talk). Self nominated at 15:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

  • I think the hook is too vague. What was the subject of his speech? The organisers of which event? Mindmatrix 20:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've just made an additional edit to fix the DYKmake template, but there's still something wrong with the hook—Gfosankar, please don't edit hooks in place, but add ALT hooks if you wish to make new versions—and it needs further revising. I'd actually recommend fitting the title of the book, which is very strong, in the hook, rather than obscuring the link. Perhaps something like:
I would like to suggest that the article be given a copyedit. —BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It's been nearly two weeks without action, so I'm going to upgrade my suggestion to a requirement: given the current state of the article's prose, I do not believe it can be considered for the main page. If a copyedit is done, then I'm happy to call for a full DYK review, but not until then. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I did some copy edits. --Gfosankar (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)



List of All India Forward Bloc candidates in the Indian general election, 2014, Pancham Lal

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC).



Texas annexation

Improved to Good Article status by 36hourblock (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 08:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

  • If I might, I would like to suggest an ALT or two.
ALT1 ... that the Republic of Texas was heavily in debt, and its boundaries disputed, prior to its annexation by the United States?
Alt2 ... that the original annexation treaty of the Republic of Texas proposed by United States President John Tyler could have divided Texas into four states, three of them possible slave states?
Alt 3 ... that the Republic of Texas presented a formal proposal for annexation by the United States to President Martin Van Buren who rejected it?
— Maile (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be okay with the original text, but with "passing into American control" linked rather than "Texas". Tezero (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I linked all of it, as it is all relevant. Would it be better merely to link a few words, however? Thanks, Matty.007 17:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Not to make waves, but an explanation of why I offered the ALT hooks. The original hook is not so hooky to me. Anybody has ever seen a movie that involved Texas, or even turned on the news once in a while in America, knows this. No offense meant Matty.007, but the original hook is the equivalent of saying, "Did you know that the United States was once owned by England?" In fact, the North American continent itself was largely owned by England, Mexico, Spain or France before a lot of war and bloodshed happened. Texas didn't just "pass into American control". Wars were fought to win its independence, and the American government wasn't all that fond of annexing Texas. It took a lot of political maneuvering to get the legislation passed in Congress. 36hourblock who took that article to GA status did a tremendous job of a complicated issue. Matty, I see you already mentioned this nomination to 36hourblock, but I also transcluded this template on his talk page . — Maile (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I would disagree that saying Texas used to be French is on the same scale as saying the US used to be English. There is a clear difference in the proportion of the fact, Texas is only one 52 of the US, so whereas many people will know the US was British, not as many abroad will know Texas was independent. If you want an alt, I think focussing on the rejected annexation proposal is probably most interesting. Thanks, Matty.007 11:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I encourage you to offer an ALT of your own. The article is about the annexation itself, and it would be nice if the chosen hook focused on that. What was annexed was the Republic of Texas. Texians wanted annexation because the Republic was bankrupt and Mexico refused to recognize its independence - they wanted the protection of the United States. One of the annexation proposals was to not even have Texas as a state, but just a territory. If you go into who once owned Texas, it takes it off into background, not the annexation itself. Who previously owned Texas, IMO in nominating the article for DYK, is not as important as the how and why of annexation. Did You know (couldn't resist that one) ... that French colonization of Texas is actually a Featured Article?— Maile (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed of article and hooks, including the usual including hook and article sourcing, newness, neutrality, and close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review: article went to good article status same day as nominated, so new enough. It is big enough. There are plenty of references. Credits correct person who has been working on this since the beginning of the year. Reads neutral. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It would be helpful to have a full rather than partial review: nothing was said about which hooks are valid and which are not, or about their sourcing—plenty of references is one thing, but each hook needs to be checked to make sure the facts are in the article and sourced by the end of the article sentences when they appear. There also doesn't appear to have been even a spot-check for close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I can offer part of the review. But since three of the hooks are mine, I can't complete it.
- No QPQ necessary. Not a self-nom.
- Impossible to check close paraphrasing, since all 199 citations are off-line
- Article achieved GA status March 22, 2014
- The original hook is sourced throughout, because that hook is what the entire article is about. However I have also stated my opinion above that I believe the original hook is not preferable and also not really correct to say Texas "passed into American hands", since it took a war with Mexico, bankruptcy of the Republic and multiple tries at annexation, before it was a done deal. Annexation is not "passing" into any country's hands.
- ALT4 is stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence with Ref #138, but it might be more correct to clarify it was the "United States Senate", and the proposed annexation was to the United States.
- No dabs or redirects of concern.
- And while I can't approve my own hooks, let me help the next reviewer to find where these are:
ALT1 - Last paragraph under section "Texas Settlement and Independence" and first paragraph of section "Tyler-Texas Treaty and the Election of 1844"
ALT2 - First paragraph of section "Tyler-Texas Treaty and the Election of 1844"
ALT3 - Last paragraph of section "Jackson and Van Buren Administrations"
Hope this helps move this along a little. Somebody else needs to verify Alts 1,2, 3 and complete this review. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 23[edit]

Paraptosis

Created by Jhayes21 (talk), Lisawisa (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 11:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg At first glance, there are numerous cleanup tags and empty sections in the article - these issues need to be fixed before the article is ready for the front page, assuming that it fulfils other DYK criteria. 97198 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Now there are no empty sections and cleanup tags are gone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've delved into the article a bit, and came away thinking that there are still some serious problems with it. I don't know the science, but I am not convinced that this article is presenting it appropriately. Examples of my concerns:
  • Several research results that were reported in a single primary source scientific paper are reported as if they were objective fact (that is, the article uses language like "... has been shown to... " rather than describing the research finding as a single research report). Note that research findings aren't "fact" until other investigators have replicated the findings and accepted them. Since this article discusses potential implications for cancer treatment, we need to be mindful of WP:MEDRS.
  • The sentence "Somewhere on a spectrum created by two of the five major cell death types, apoptosis and necrosis, lies paraptosis..." looked to me like it might have been closely paraphrased from a source, so I checked the cited source. I didn't find anything like that statement in the source, but I also don't find support for the statement in the article (the source doesn't suggest anything about a spectrum -- rather, my reading indicates that it describes these as three distinct types of cell death).
  • I removed this but I did find mention in a completely independent masters thesis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph under "Pathway" contained a direct quote from the source (which I can read online) that misquoted the source. (I corrected that.) Also, the passage in that paragraph that states "Perhaps consequentially then it is no surprise that..." may be the contributor's opinion or original research, as the cited source doesn't seem to suggest that "consequence" or absence of surprise.
  • The "Physiological systems" subsection consists of only three words; this looks like it might be a placeholder for something to be written later.
  • The last sentence under "Morphology" is not a complete sentence. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Thanks for the improvements. I still have concern that the article is heavily based on primary sources (that is, initial papers describing the findings of one study) rather than review articles and similar secondary sources. Excellent secondary sources do exist; I found several free online review articles and a free online book chapter: [10]; [11]; "Apoptosis and Cell Death", by Pothana Saikumar and Manjeri A. Venkatachalam, chapter 4 of a 2009 book discusses paraptosis as one of the different types of cell death; this review article with full text free online has only one paragraph on paraptosis, but the content could add value to this article; [12] is a review article on types of cell death published before paraptosis was described, but it provides some good background. This page may also be worthwhile. Ideally, the article creators would consider using some of these sources, or others like them.
Finally, the proposed hook could be misinterpreted as medical advice. Because of that, and because it's based on a single research paper, I don't think we should be using it on the main page. I suggest rewording it so that it doesn't focus on that one chemical. There is a lot more citation support for the following variant hook:
  • ALT1 ... that cancer cells can die from paraptosis after treatment with certain anti-cancer substances? --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That ALT1 hook does sound suitable, so I am happy if that is used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm ready to pass this article, with ALT1, but because I suggested the hook, I think we need another reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 hook is in the article and properly sourced. The rest of the review approval per Orlady. Struck the original hook as unapproved per Orlady's concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on March 24[edit]

DNA base flipping

Moved to mainspace by Magladem96 (talk), Amontei2 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 11:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

  • The article
  • New? Symbol delete vote.svg This was moved to mainspace 22 days ago.
  • Long enough? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Appropriate citations? Symbol delete vote.svg Both of the sentences (yes, there are two) where the fact is mentioned aren't cited.
  • Dispute templates? Symbol delete vote.svg
  • Plagiarism? Symbol delete vote.svg
  • Neutral? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • The hook
  • Properly formatted? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Short enough? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Neutral? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • "Hooky"? Symbol delete vote.svg This hook has the form "... that X is Y?".
  • Final verdict: Symbol possible vote.svg The article was moved to mainspace more than 5 days ago, and the sentences where the nom got the facts from aren't cited. Please nom, cite those sentences.
  • By the way, I'm a new reviewer, so if I did something wrong, please inform me. Philroc 22:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Philroc, it was moved to article space on 24 March and I nominated on the 31 March, you must be getting the time period from today's date or something. However it is over 5 days, but I was nominating the class's work that could meet the standard and I was hoping they could get some leniency. What is the cross against dispute templates for? Does it mean failure or that there are no templates? Currently there are no dispute templates ( like citation needed). The hooks is in the lead paragraph, and the sentence has three references on it. Did you find plagiarism? Since the hook is not hooky enough how about:
  • The crosses in dispute templates and plagiarism are good. I am trying to say it as if you were telling someone in real life. Like... "Dispute templates? No. Plagarism? No.". I'll review the alt hook. Philroc 14:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the article is supposed to have been created within the past 5 days. Philroc 14:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Philroc's Hook-Only Checklist
  • Properly formatted? Symbol delete vote.svg I fixed the problem myself so now it's Symbol confirmed.svg.
  • Short enough? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Neutral? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • "Hooky"? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Final verdict: Symbol confirmed.svg This meets all the hook criteria (except for the formatting which I fixed myself). Good job! Philroc 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Actually, it doesn't meet all the criteria. Even though it wasn't mentioned in the checklist, the two sentences where you got the fact from still aren't cited. Please cite them. Philroc 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @User:Philroc I have added the citation to two other sentences that mentioned the fact. It was referenced in the lead already, but now also individual sentences now have their own reference too. So I hope these are the sentences you want to see ref tags on! Thanks for the speedy alt1 review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You did it for one, but not for the other. The uncited sentence looks like this: "DNA methylation is the process in which a methyl group is added to either a cytosine or adenine." After you cite that sentence, I will review the article again. Philroc 22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK I have added another reference for that particular sentence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, you did cite the right sentences. I was going a bit fast and made a mistake. Sorry. Anyway, I actually won't be reviewing again since this article was moved more than 5 days ago. You could try improving the article to Good Article status within the next 5 days. Until then, see you later! (Note: No, I am not failing this. I am just waiting 5 days until the article gets promoted to Good Article status.) Philroc 22:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Calling for a new reviewer. Removing the X Rejection symbol, since Philroc says he is not failing the nomination. FYI - if it were nominated as a GA, it would have to be nominated on a new template. Full review needed by new reviewer with more experience on DYK. To clarify, as noted by the timeline of Graeme Bartlett above, this article was 7 days old when nominated. The article history verifies it was moved from draft on March 24. Not a big deal in the long run.
D9 "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations.
Also, all those green ticks and red Xs next to every item might be confusing our housekeeping bot. This looks like a really interesting, intelligent article that would be good for the main page. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
My mind can't take this. Please give me some resources so I can know DYK some more. Philroc 12:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
We're all in the "my mind can't take this" club at times. DYK rules are in more than one place, and we generally don't know them all until we come across each scenario and find a solution (or get corrected by another editor). That's what I meant by a more experienced editor. As for the ticks, of all colors from the template, the housekeeping bot responds to those (I think, anyway) when it updates the Queue. If I got that incorrect, another editor here will correct me. The purple ones can be used on individual items. The others are generally whether the entire nomination has passed, didn't pass, or needs a new reviewer. We've got the Rules page, Supplementary guidelines and Reviewing guide for the basics. Don't worry about absorbing it all at once. We are all on a learning curve, and issues are posted on the Talk page. Personally, trial and error have taught me to stay away from subjects or sources I don't understand. Because things come up like another editing saying "in the article, such and such doesn't mean that...." But that's just me. — Maile (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think it is humans that read these DYK nomination pages and look for approved ones to build into the prep areas. The humans will be looking for the words "good to go", and the tick, at least that the last statement has a tick after all problems are fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Maile is absolutely correct: the list of approved hooks on the queue page is generated by a bot that looks at the icons and bases the current status on the final icon found. That's why icons should only be used once in a review entry as the summary status—it's best put at the beginning, with the explanation following—rather than for each item in the check: it's easy to determine the current status of the review by looking for the icon. When I assemble a prep set I frankly dread seeing the words "good to go" because it's usually attached to a substandard review that doesn't explain most or any of what was checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)




Spicara maena, Spicara smaris

  • Reviewed: DJ Hoppa, Sirah (rapper)

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 07:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

  • I can't get past the interesting fact that the "Atlantic range extends from Morocco northwards to the Canary Islands." The Canaries are not north of Morocco, are they? (Not even on Wikipedia.) Also, the pictures contradict the descriptions. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC))
  • I have relocated the Canaries! As for the (single) picture, the fish is probably variable in appearance across its wide range - it has 21 synonyms after all - hence the apparent discrepancy between the image and the description. I thought it best to remove the image from this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There were two pictures, and neither looked like the description. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC))

Can you point us to the source(s) that state that the sex change happens when reaching a certain size, and not e.g. when reaching a certain age? The oldest are all male, the largest are all male, but I couldn't detect a statement in the sources that attributed the sex change to size. Correlation is not causation and so on. Fram (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The FishBase source says that the blotched picarel is a protogynous hermaphrodite, which means it starts life as a female and becomes a male later. The Soykan paper states, in the discussion section near the end, that the sex inversion happens between the lengths of 14.5 cm and 18 cm. The FishBase page for the picarel just says "protogyny". The hook says "as they grow" which seems reasonable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, that's original research. The "sex inversion" simply indicates the statistical length at which more are male than female, it doesn't indicate at what length the sex change actually happens. It can be age based, length based, weight based, or something else, but "as they grow" gives the impression that it is caused by length. Perhaps the sex change causes a growth spurt instead? The spicara smaris article states "becoming males when they reach a certain size", which clearly indicates that you believe the change is caused by reaching a certain length. Please don't make such statements without good, clear, unambiguous sources, and don't make hooks about such things either. Fram (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "as they grow" bears the implications you give it, but anyway, how about: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
And are you going to do anything about the articles? Either find sources which support your claims, or remove your original research? Fram (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the relevant sentences in the articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


I Am a Ukrainian

A still from I am a Ukrainian

Created by Piotrus (talk), Zeddocument (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 07:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Note: I just moved the page from I am a Ukrainian to I Am a Ukrainian and changed the hook to reflect this. 97198 (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I am in the process of obtaining a freely licensed image (OTRS), so if this is reviewed before I add image and pictured, please delay any featuring until this process is completed. PS. Picture now added, OTRS permission still pending. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


* Symbol possible vote.svg Interesting enough. Enough characters. Hook is sourced. Will recheck this article soon, since I see that there may be work in progress regarding the image. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, 1500 characters are required, purposely designed not to be too hard to meet. Thanks, Matty.007 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Matty. I have modified my text above.Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Still waiting for the update on OTRS. Interested editors may want to speed the matter by asking for an update at Facebook if this takes too long; I last asked on March 30. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

D. Balakrishna

Created by Regstuff (talk). Self nominated at 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Heh. I like this one. Well-formatted and phrased. Tezero (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There is currently a cleanup tag at the top of the article regarding reference reliability, with specific tags regarding refs 3, 5 and 6 - two of which are blogs and one of which seems to be a self-published site. 97198 (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Dicen Que Soy

  • ... that La India's recordings of "Ese Hombre" and "Dicen Que Soy" on her album Dicen Que Soy have been described as "anthems for female salsa lovers"?

5x expanded by Magiciandude (talk). Self nominated at 05:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Long enough (> 5x expansion). Well written. Well sourced. Neutral, matter-of-fact tone. Hook is interesting (though I wish the songs themselves had articles). But at least the following areas need to be fixed: (1) Combinacion Perfecta of a June 1993 concert was released in 1996, not 1993; (2) It became a Top Ten hit, not the same as making number 10; (3) I can't find the info for "According to Nielsen SoundScan, Dicen Que Soy has sold over 144,000 copies as of 2000" in the cited source. Hybernator (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
1) It was released in 1993 as evident by this article from Los Angeles Times (I've added it as ref). 2) Fixed 3) The sales is provided at the bottom of the article I cited. Cheers. Erick (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Johnnie Boden

  • Reviewed: Put here

Created by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new (created 25 March 2014), barely long enough (1,600 characters, excluding headers, references etc) and relies on three main newspaper articles as it's cited references. There are a number of close paraphrasings of those references contained in the article. The grammar in the article is also 'clunky" (i.e. Boden had been robbed, hired a dishonest worker, leading his inheritence (sic) to be gone in three years).
The hook is short enough and properly cited. It is however misleading in stating that he "takes a sprout to work once a week", as Sprout is the name of his dog (correct wording would be "takes Sprout to work once a week" or "takes his dog, Sprout, to work once a week" - neither or which are particularly "hooky"). Needs work. Dan arndt (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to mention that this is for April Fools. Which parts are close paraphrasing? Wording changed. Thanks, Matty.007 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
As Boden's dog is called Sprout it is incorrect to state he "take a sprout" it may be better worded to say "takes his Sprout" or "takes Sprout" - I understand that the intention is for April Fools but it still has to make some sort of grammatical sense and be factually correct.Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Have provided feedback on the article talkpage.Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Attempted fix of all issues. Thanks, Matty.007 12:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the original hook wasn't approved in time for April Fools Day, a new ALT1 hook should be supplied for regular DYK use that works in a normal context. Once that's in place, then the review can recommence. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we not just keep it for next fools'? Thanks, Matty.007 17:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not according to the rules on the April Fools Day page, unless you now do a 5x expansion or turn it into a Good Article. There's nothing about holding over for next year. Can't you come up with something worthwhile on this guy that isn't an AFD joke? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean by AFD joke, but I can think of Alts. Thanks, Matty.007 18:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In this context, AFD = April Fools Day, so AFD joke is April Fools Day joke. Waiting for the ALT hook or hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for explaining that, I thought there was some major issue with the article regarding Articles for Deletion.

Thanks, Matty.007 17:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed of ALT1 hook, and also to check whether the issues raised above and on the article's talk page have been fully addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no reference in the article to Johnnie Boden being worth £215M and no cited reference for that.Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • In the infobox, cited to BBC: ref says But 52-year-old founder Johnnie Boden, worth £215m according to The Sunday Times Rich List, is not a man prone to extravagance. Thanks, Matty.007 08:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • A hook "should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" and the "fact must be mentioned in the article" - which potentially excludes it only being mentioned in the infobox of the article. Also the hook should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article" unfortunately whilst Alt 1 is certainly short it isn't very 'catchy'.Dan arndt (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Symbol possible vote.svg Using a more appropriate icon—the orange X means the nomination probably can't be saved, and this just needs a new hook. A source in the article gives Boden's 2012 wealth at £320 million, so the latest 2013 number of £215 million is a major change, and it is probably old news by now (depending on the company's performance in the stock market, if it's a public company). As Dan notes, hook facts should be in the article proper, not just in the infobox. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Catchy depends on the person, I find someone being worth hundreds of million interesting and want to find out how. The Sunday Times richlist (see User_talk:Matty.007#Johnnie Boden) is a tad confusing, so I am just clarifying (will add to article when clear). Thanks, Matty.007 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Matty.007, your reviewer has said it isn't catchy. I agree. (The guy was 255th on the Sunday Times list in 2012, not very high up, before his wealth dropped by a third.) Adding clarification won't help that; it's time to come up with a different hook if you want this nomination to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
              • OK. Alt 2: ... that Johnnie Boden, founder of Boden, was previously a teacher, a publican, a stockbroker and a businessman?
              • Alt 3: ... that Johnnie Boden, founder of Boden, "loathed" being a stockbroker? That's all I can think of for now, I know it's not great. Thanks, Matty.007 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Out of those suggested Alt 3 probably is getting closer to be a 'catchy' hook - still needs work.Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Any alts are welcome. Thanks, Matty.007 08:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Alt 4: ... that when Johnnie Boden, founder of clothing retailer Boden first edited a menswear magazine, his father called it a "stupid job"? Matty.007 16:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian Renewable Energy Agency

Created by Chriswaterguy (talk). Nominated by John Vandenberg (talk) at 17:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

  • One issue with that hook is that they are not the sole funder. The article needs to give more detail about the funding structure, with sources, in order that the hook doesnt imply a mistruth. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg John, it's up to you to provide a workable hook as nominator, or to fix the article yourself so the hook you proposed is valid, if you wish this to run as a DYK entry. It's been over three and a half weeks with no action; you need to do something soon if this is going to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fixed with ALT1 (and article conforms to this):

Note that while this is specifically a photovoltaic plant, it is the largest solar plant of any kind in the S.H. Thus the facial text of ALT1 is correct but its final link is somewhat overspecific. However, I don't see any better link choice, without overcomplicating the statement of the hook ("construction of a photovoltaic power station which will be the southern hemisphere's largest solar power station" -- yechh). EEng (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)



SpaceX reusable launch system development program

  • ... that SpaceX is working on bringing back orbital rockets to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs?
  • ALT1:... that SpaceX is working on bringing back orbital rocket stages to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs – just like Buck Rogers thought they should back in the 1950s?
  • ALT2:(if soon after a recent test flight [see below for dates, etc.] ): ... that SpaceX just completed a (hopefully) successful test flight bringing a 43-meter (141 ft) tall orbital rocket stage moving at Mach 10 down through the atmosphere for a simulated landing over the ocean?
  • Comment: This DYK would be best if it ran a few days after a SpaceX flight test where a first stage decelleration from Mach 10 and controlled-descent test through the atmosphere over the ocean is done. The first such test occurred in Sept. 2013; the next one is scheduled for 30 March 2014 or 2 April 2014 (launches can be delayed due to weather and various other reasons; the flight test of the new booster return technology can only be tested after the main launch—paid for by a customer with big bucks, $60 to $120 million for the primary payload to orbit—gets off the ground). There will be others throughout this year. I (User:N2e) would be happy to answer any questions. Just ping me on my Talk page.

Improved to Good Article status by N2e (talk). Self nominated at 03:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment: added comment on 28 March 2014: there was a fire in one of the radar facilities of the USAF Eastern Range on about 26 March, so all orbital launches from Cape Canaveral and/or Kennedy Space Center are on hold for now: the SpaceX CRS-3 flight, on which the next controlled-descent flight test was to occur following the first-stage ascent, is now postponed and won't happen on 30 March; new date has not been rescheduled. I will try to get back here and update when the launch is rescheduled. N2e (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The radar is fixed; launch is rescheduled for "no earlier than" 14 April, and that depends on weather, plus some other US national security launches going off successfully before the range is even available to SpaceX. N2e (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I switched the main and the ALT1 hooks. This is my first nomination for DYK and I didn't know what I was doing. So I wrote an interesting hook, and it is one that is associated with vertical landing rockets (and is sourced): Buck Rogers vertical landing rocket, but the article doesn't currently have a source to the Buck Rogers locution in the GA version of the article. It would be possible to source this in the article, since one of the two sources at the Buck Rogers vertical landing rocket page is to use of the term about SpaceX' reusable rocket development program, but I am quite uncertain if it is okay to go in and change the GA article with this info now, after it has been nominated for DYK. In short, I'm a bit confused on the process, and so want to be careful not to break a bunch of rules. N2e (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on March 25[edit]

The Origins of Political Order

5x expanded by DanielDemaret (talk). Self nominated at 11:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Length OK, hook potentially interesting and referenced, expansion criteria met. I would suggest changing the wording to "wrote a" rather than "has written a", shorter and in the active voice. From a style point of view, each review does not need it's own section and you should address that. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I have now, by your kind suggestion 1) changed Hook to "wrote". 2) removed subsections and also 3) attempted to review another DYK. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Minor issues fixed up. Good to go. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg In addition to the use of absolutely huge blockquotes, this article includes some material taken near-verbatim from sources that is not quoted - for example, "it is refreshing to find a scholar prepared to tackle big questions in this way", or "Although the future trajectory of China is a question lurking in the background, Fukuyama is concerned mainly with the sense of political stasis haunting many liberal democracies". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Nikkimaria. I have revised the Reception section and tried to eliminate near-verbatims and huge block-quote, mostly by shortening them. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work so far, DanielDemaret (and when a quote has been shortened to less than about 40 words, it can be presented inline rather than blockquoted). However, while Reception had the greatest number of long quotes, I don't believe it is the only section with issues of unquoted near-verbatim material - compare for example "This enmeshed states in networks of accountability to non-state actors, in this case to the clergy and to the pope, who historically frequently objected to wars, similarly to what had happened in India, but it also left states strong enough to function" to "This enmeshed states in networks of accountability to non-state actors, just as had happened in India, but it also left states strong enough to function" from here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Nikkimaria. I have now worked on the text before "reception", chasing copied texts, and improved references. Do you think I should change quotes with fewer than 40 words to inline? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "creating stable, peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, and honest societies" and "seemed genuinely surprised when the Iraqi state itself collapsed in an orgy of looting and civil conflict" are further examples of non-quoted copying; at this point, it would probably be worthwhile for you to go through the article line by line to check for further issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)








Incidents of Necrophilia

Created by OccultZone (talk), Self nominated at 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on March 26[edit]

Minigene

Created by Deacon C (talk), Tmo32 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 08:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC).



Tripedalia cystophora

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 20:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

  • I can't see in the source where it says it can see mangrove roots. Can you provide a sentence or page and paragraph? Also, is this a single experimental study? Maybe there is a secondary source where it says this that is not in the article? Also, does not "inhabit" edge of lagoons, title of article is big clue to inaccuracy of that statement. Please correct article before putting on main page. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC))
  • The title's "opposite patterns" (I assume that's what's being pointed at) refers to the "opposite patterns of diurnal activity" of the two species discussed, and that the critter is found "on the muddy bottom of the mangrove lagoon" at night is in the first paragraph. In the day, they "were found swimming close to the surface in between the prop roots" "in the mangroves near La Parguera, Puerto Rico". So, this colony lives there and feeds there, day and night. I have tweaked the article a bit: the valid points got snowed under by the accusations. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The valid points are ignored, and Cwmhiraeth scolds me then reverts me without the accusations, or ignores the bad science. Yes, the title was a big clue, as was the title of the CAM photosynthesis article. Thanks for the accuracy edit. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
  • More failed verifications. I have not even checked the article. Please read the sources you use, I cannot find a single accurately attributed sentence. I have only reviewed half a dozen, but every one failed. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC))
@AfadsBad:, can you confirm that you accessed [13] and determined that there are no statements in it about obstacle avoidance? @Cwmhiraeth: can you post some Fair Use quotes here to support obstacle avoidance? The cubomedusan eye is a fascinating window into early animal evolution and I would welcome a hook that can showcase its abilities. Thank you for writing these articles! Wnt (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that the box jellyfish Tripedalia cystophora feeds on the copepod Dioithona oculata which swarms in sunlit patches of water among mangrove roots? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    Would you not just pick phrases, omit quotes, and rearrange them to write Wikipedia articles? These three sentences that support the hook are now a copyvio, "dense swarms," "shafts of sunlight," "illuminated /patches areas" from the one source. Copepods swarm in areas of the mangrove prop roots where the sunlight penetrates the canopy. Rewriting in your own words, plainly, would also make it easier to understand. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC))
The sentence with the three things listed is "Dense swarms of these copepods form in the illuminated patches of water where shafts of sunlight shine through the mangrove canopy." The abstract says "The cubozoan medusa Tripedalia cystophora preys on dense swarms of the copepod Dioithona oculata in the mangrove prop-root habitat of Puerto Rico. The copepod swarms form in shafts of sunlight that penetrate the mangrove canopy during the day. T. cystophora are found primarily within the same illuminated areas, feeding heavily on the dense swarms of copepods." It is clear that there is no copyright violation here. Whether there is any stylistic criticism to be offered is another question - but in previous DYKs, after highlighting specific quotes and soliciting comments, I have passed considerably closer paraphrasing than this. While someone could have taken more time to be original, I see nothing actionable here. Wnt (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have now written a new article for the copepod and added it to this nomination, which is now a joint hook. What a fascinating relationship! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Failed verification for both articles. Pleased don't just pick a random, old fact, then inaccurately add it to an article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
If your comment was a little less cryptic, I might understand and respond to whatever point you are trying to make. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your writing is so inaccurate, it is overwhelming. You picked one piece of information from a 1963 source and made it the single prominent means of differentiating this species? OR, indue weight, random misinformation. It's lenses, by the way. And is it the structure? This source does not say. Less cryptic? There is almost no relationship between the sources you cite and what you attach it to, undue weight, random fact, you change precise colors to avoid plagiarism, then plagiarize poetic writing, you misquote, you get the facts wrong. Use the source correctly, don't randomly weight the information in it, be accurate, write in a logical order, and I might have something from which to be less cryptic. Your article is an inaccurate badly joined assortment of misinformation from all over the place. Every sentence should be carefully checked. Rewrite in a readable or organized fashion, include accurate information, and I might be able to be less cryptic. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
What is this 1963 source you keep mentioning? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the history of this DYK discussion - where is anything presented as the "single prominent means" of anything? It is clear from [14] (2012) that there is a relationship with the copepod. Wnt (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)



The Sun Also Rises (ballet), The Select (The Sun Also Rises), The Sun Also Rises (1984 film)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 02:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

Ernest Hemingway

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Created by TonyTheTiger on March 26, 2014 with 1,640 characters of readable prose as of now. Supported by inline citations throughout, with hook from dancetabs.com. Classified as a stub which needs to be fixed. Good to go. Consider ALT1 below for clarity: per source, novel in not en pointe, the ballet adaptation is. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The ALT2 below is not part of my review, neither the hook, nor the new article. Poeticbent talk 14:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on March 27[edit]

Nancy Eriksson

  • ... that Swedish politician Nancy Eriksson as a leader of the Diabetic society for twenty years, wrote motions so that people suffering from diabetes could get jobs with the state?

Created by BabbaQ (talk), Werldwayd (talk), Ohconfucius (talk), GoingBatty (talk), Launchballer (talk). Nominated by BabbaQ (talk) at 10:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

Done.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Prose looks a little fluffed up in places (i.e. written in such a way that characters are added without conveying information). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)





List of Billy Graham's crusades

Evangelist Billy Graham, at a Crusade in Cleveland Ohio, on June 11, 1994

Created by Leszek Jańczuk (talk). Self nominated at 03:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough, new enough, sources check out fine, hook cited, good to go. ZappaOMati 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I am puzzled by the passage of this hook with the clear error of a lowercase abbreviated "rev."—which is also in the article—and note that the image, neutrality, and close paraphrasing have not been mentioned in the review. (I think the image is very hard to make out.) However, looking at the article, I think it is not ready for DYK. The text needs a copyedit—the opening sentence of the article is a fragment, which is a bad sign, and misspellings are rife, including months (e.g., "Mai" rather than "May"). There are a number of extraordinary claims in the opening paragraph that need citations. The list of 417 crusades is virtually unsourced, which appears to be original research, and thus problematic for Wikipedia and DYK in particular. The dates are mostly missing in the list, too, which is a problem, as is the inconsistent spelling and sometime abbreviation. This simply isn't ready for a main page link in its current condition. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Glad to see "Mai" corrected, though it was a minor part of a large whole; "rev." was fixed in the hook but not in the article. This needs a great deal of work to the text and sourced completion for the table, not tiny cosmetic touches to the latter. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)




Byculla to Bangkok

Created by Ethically Yours (talk). Self nominated at 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hook short enough and appropriate, at approximately 1870 characters, article is long enough, neutral and hook is cited.
  • Symbol question.svg However, the "Critical reviews" section is almost entirely direct quotations; (see here) they ARE properly cited and attributed, (yay!) but at 550 characters, it is nearly 1/3 of the article. I am unsure how marginal this makes the nom and will consult some folks on the matter. Montanabw(talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Generally, reviews should be paraphrased rather than quoted extensively, with perhaps a short phrase quoted if it can't be expressed in any other way. There was one very long quote that I have put in a blockquote per WP:Blockquote; since such long quotes do not count as original prose for DYK purposes, the article is too short at 1355 prose characters, and will need expansion. I was also wondering about the sourcing: mpositive.in looks like a blog (if the story is copied from bangaloremirror.com, then that's the source that should be used), and mumbaiboss.com talks about user submission and how they may be untrustworthy, which makes we wonder whether it can be considered a reliable source. The Critical reviews section makes two upfront assertions: that the the book "received fairly average to negative reviews" and that the prequel was a better story. Neither of those assertions are backed up by the two sources in the section, which is a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If the source meets the criteria of WP:NEWSBLOG it can be a RS, just saying. But if BlueMoonset is correct that extensive quotes don't count toward the character total, making the article too short, then that is another concern. I'm striking my character count for now. My suggestion is that you can go in and expand/improve this article and then ping me to come back and look it over again. I believe the nomination will stay "live" and remain DYK eligible for awhile, so long as there appears to be active work on the article. Good luck! Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Article now has more than 1500 characters. EthicallyYours! 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg By javascript I'm getting 1507, excluding all the headers, foonotes, refs, etc. So technically that is OK. However, the issues raised by Blue Moonset about sourcing, above, still need to be addressed. Montanabw(talk) 06:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 28[edit]

Western green mamba

The Western green mamba

  • ... that the Western green mamba (pictured) kills its prey by pursuing it and striking it, killing it with its venom?

Improved to Good Article status by DendroNaja (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 18:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Corrected "persuing" to "pursuing". Otherwise, all criteria seem to be met (although I could not verify the two sources provided after "This snake actively pursues its prey, striking rapidly and often until the prey succumbs to the venom" in the article). Perhaps replacing "striking it, killing it with its venom" with "striking it rapidly, often killing it with its venom" would be closer to the content of the article? --Edcolins (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Sorry, please can this wait a day or so? I am discussing alts with DendroNaja at the minute. Thanks, Matty.007 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for waiting. DendroNaja suggested this alt: Alt 1: ... that the Western green mamba (pictured) is one of the most venemous snakes in the world? Matty.007 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the western green mamba is not one of the most venomous, the black mamba is. What I said is that the mambas, including the western green mamba, have venom which contains pre-synaptic neurotoxins called dendrotoxins, which are the most ra pid-acting snake venom toxins in the world. So it would actually be Alt 2: ... that the Western green mamba (pictured), like other mamba species, has the most rapid-acting venom among all snakes? --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 15:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry. Struck mine and made it clear yours is the right one. Thanks, Matty.007 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think its the best you can do with the western green mamba. Had this been the black mamba, you could've had so many awesome DYK's - they are the 4th most venomous snake species (LD50 0.05 mg/kg), the fastest snakes in the world, they have the highest untreated mortality rate (100%), and the list can go on and on. Unfortunately, the three green mambas aren't as remarkable aside from the virulent nature of the venom, which is similar in toxicity to many cobra species, but lethality rates are considerably higher due to the shorter time span victims have to get a hospital. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 16:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What about this one?:
  • ALT3:... that the Western green mamba (pictured) has one of the most rapidly acting venoms among all snakes?
By the way, should the "W" of "Western" be capitalized? The article seems inconsistent in that respect. --Edcolins (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed it in the hook. In the article, due to it referring to West Africa (I think), I think it should be capitalised (I was reading the MOS about this on something else earler). Thanks, Matty.007 17:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally wouldn't capitalize the "W" if you're going to refer to it as the "western green mamba", but it should be capitalized if you're going to refer to it as the "West African green mamba", which is another common name used to refer to the species. However, I've seen the "W" both capitalized and not in "Western green mamba" in both text books and peer-reviewed journalistic work aswell. But, I'm a laboratory technologist and an amateur herpetologist, not an English professor, so... --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest you refer to it as the "West African green mamba" just so that you'll have no issues regarding this matter. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 18:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on March 30[edit]

Baratuciat

Created by Agne27 (talk). Self nominated at 22:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The most important thing for any hook, including those for April Fools' Day, is that they be true. This simply is not. The article says that the name is "similar to" or "derived from" the term used in the local dialect to denote cats' testicles. That is a long way from saying that these grapes are or ever were referred to as "cats' testicles". The article was also created before the date allowed by the rules for April Fools' Day 2015; there might have been some leeway if it was a great hook which was actually true, but that's not the case here. A regular hook should be used instead. It can still get the quirky slot by mentioning the testicles, but in a way which is true. Perhaps something like:
  • ALT1: ... that grapes whose name may be derived from the local term for cats' testicles are used to make a Piedmont wine which may have an aroma similar to that of a cat's litter box? MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being too cautious in trying to avoid close paraphrasing by rewriting it in my own words but if you look at this "online source it says "The name means for a local dialect "cats testicles" and probably refers to the berries or grapes form." And the exact line from the Wine Grapes book says "Its strange name supposedly comes from the local dialect meaning 'cat's testicles'." Not knowing the Piedmontese language, and again wanting to avoid close paraphrasing, I used the phrase "similar to" and "derived from" to take a more cautious approach.
That said, I have no issue with the Alt and moving it back to the regular queue. AgneCheese/Wine 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Since I suggested the ALT, I can't do the review, so someone else should take care of it. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


Dead baby jokes

Created by Plot Spoiler (talk). Self nominated at 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Currently the article is not long enough for DYK - including the example jokes it is only ~1,400 characters and when the examples are excluded (as I believe they should be) it is only ~1,100. It will have to be expanded a bit more to be eligible. 97198 (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The proposed hook is a nice example of how an offensive subject can be presented in DYK without making an offensive hook. However, as the article is too insubstantial for DYK in its present form -- not merely too short in terms of character count, but too light on the kind of information that ought to be in an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the feedback from both of you. Will work to expand the article -- though as you can imagine it's challenging to find reliable sources on this subject! Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)



Killiechassie

Killiechassie estate on the banks of the Tay

Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but I am opposed to using this image in the DYK. As the caption in the article states, the subject of the article isn't actually in the picture. This is a picture of the general area, which while not entirely useless, isn't particularly useful either. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The topic is not just the house but also the surrounding estate, and the picture seems to show some part of that. Granted, it's rather misty and vague but it gives a feel for the nature of the land there. Andrew (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes I'd say that the land on the other side of the river is part of the estate, especially as she bought more land. If you look at the OS map on geograph though I think the house is just off the picture to the left. Image isn't great, but the nearest free photo I could find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The first article on this subject made Wikipedia look like it had accidentally linked to some cheap celebrity magazine. Now it looks like gossip trivia trying to camouflage itself in an encyclopedic entry. Some estates are too obscure for an encyclopedia, some are valued. Given time, Wikipedia will no doubt find where it draws the line with regards to Killiechassie. In the meantime, as established by reasoned debate - notability is not inherited: why has this article not removed the JK Rowling references?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killiechassie_House

The JK Rowling references are trivial gossip more suited to Hello magazine – not notable. I suggest these references are removed for this reason and also to respect the privacy of her family. I find it remarkable that Wikipedia goes to such lengths to protect the privacy of its own members and yet appears to have no respect for the privacy of Ms Rowling's family. The house itself is nothing special and most of the historical references concerning it are archaic and trivial. This article only ever appeared because of JK Rowling's link to the house. Angela MacLean (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not censored, so there really is no point in removing things to "respect the privacy" of anyone: the information is already widely available in the public domain, so it's hardly private. As the majority of the information in the article is unconnected with the writer, this is quite a long way from "gossip trivia". - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody's trying to 'censor' Wikipedia here. Privacy is respected to different degrees in different media - it's a grey area. I'm simply giving my own input here as to where I think privacy should sit in matters such as this. In fact I'm not the only person to have discussed the matter of privacy with regards to this celebrity. The fact that personal information is in the public domain does not mean to say that Wikipedia has the moral right to link to, or copy that information just because it happens to be there. The gossip trivia is supported by 'citations' which at my last count made up a third 'supporting' the article, one of which is nothing more than a tourist business website with an unreferenced list: even a passing reference to the estate's current owner hardly requires 5 citations. Someone's clearly desperate to link the estate to JKR because without her it wouldn't amount to much of an article.
More like - Did you know JKR bought a big house in the country some years ago? - Yeah probably did mate, so what? BTW what's this boring rubbish doing in your 'encyclopedia'? Angela MacLean (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't see a "tourist business website": could you let me know which that is, please? As to the JKR citations, that information appears to be supported by citations 2, 11 and 12, which isn't quite 5, or a third of the 16 on offer. If you feel so strongly about this article, can I suggest you offer it up for AfD once again? I suspect it will receive a different reception this time round. - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Britain TV citation has now been removed. However I looked in the last half hour and the article had 5 JKR orientated citations: 2, 7, 11, 12 and 15. 5 times 3 = 15. That's just one off a third. A third of the citational 'value' of this article is devoted to nothing more than a celebrity who happened to buy the house. That's cheap, pathetic and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I'd suggest she has enough vacuous creeps turning up at her estate with cameras without Wikipedia encouraging any more. New idea for a Did You Know title:
Did you know that most Wikipedians are insecure people who hide behind a moniker? And yet, some will actually use this annonymity to argue that someone else shouldn't be afforded privacy on the very same website with regards to their private home? The hypocracy behind this is disgusting, immature and cowardly. Wikipedia grow up. Perhaps the most telling obvious ommision so far to this sad affair - not one of you has mentioned either her children or the sad fate of John Lennon. Angela MacLean (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No Angela: as per the above, the JKR material is supported by only three citations: 2, 11 and 12. Citations 7 and 15 have no information about her, only about the house. The information about her is minimal in the article, which is probably correct. I'm not sure that your attack on other editors is needed here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia, to be honest) and I think that you should probably drop such an aggressive stance. I have no idea what Rowling's children or John Lennon have to do with the history of this house and estate: i presume they've been left out of the article because there is no connection? - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

" I find it remarkable that Wikipedia goes to such lengths to protect the privacy of its own members and yet appears to have no respect for the privacy of Ms Rowling's family. " LOL Angela you called me childish on your talk page for suggesting that protecting Rowling had anything to do with your reasons. The only embarrassing thing I see here is your gross overreaction to this and inappropriate rambling. It's a legitimate article on a notable country estate which happened to be bought by a famous writer. Had it been a house with no other sources than being Rowling's house then you'd have a point. What's more disgusting here is that you think we should blast perfectly fine encyclopedic content just because your favourite writer might not like it. "it looks like gossip trivia", um no, it looks like your typical encyclopedic entry on a country house/listed building with a brief mentioning of its purchase by a writer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

5 citations not 3. No aggressive language was used. I stick to the comment about hypocracy. Children should be afforded privacy from having their parents' houses listed in Did You Knows? on Wikipedia if their parent/s are celebrities. God knows it's not much to ask. Listing it on the Did You Know section will simply lead to a further flow of idiots to her property. I take it the subject of children has been left out of the discussion because there are fewer women involved in Wikipedia. Lennon and other celebrities were harrassed by people who thought they had some right to invade their privacy. As for JKR she's not my favourite author. That's my last comment here - as both sides are now repeating themselves - rainy days will see me editing elsewhere if time permits. Angela MacLean (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you don't understand citations: there are three that support the information about JKR, not five, despite your protestations to the contrary (if you think it's five, what information about Rowling do citations 7 and 15 support?). Just to correct you on a different point: JKR's children have been left out because they have nothing to do with an article about the house and estate, not because of anything to do with women editors (and I say that as a father of two). JKR's ownership of the property is of public record: we are reflecting those reliable sources, just as we strive to do in all our articles. Again I note your rather uncivil language about others: there is absolutely no call for it, so please do stop. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Shall we delete The Tower House too because Jimmy Page happens to live there and worry that a legion of fruit n nut cakes will start marching their way to his house after seeing it on wikipedia? Ludicrous.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, that's a very real fear of mine. There is a lot of creepy material on Tower House on the internet. We should try to hold discretion paramount in these cases. The pseudonymous nature of our project does seem to blunt our reputation with regards to BLP's, I believe. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Very real fear or not, we wouldn't delete it would we? If a celebrity purchases a very notable house there's little we can do about it. We don't bow down to people like that. If they don't want their house documented on the Internet don't buy a listed building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all covered by the Streisand effect which arose from the similar case of a celebrity trying to suppress details of their residence. Andrew (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)





P50 (neuroscience)

Created by Staticshakedown (talk). Self nominated at 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new and big enough. Citations throughout. Listed user did the work. QPQ OK. However some writing is too jargony and I did not understand it. Terms like proband and endophenotype are not needed or need a clear explanation. So this applies to the hook, and people reading the hook will have no idea what it is talking about. It's fair enough to leave P50 as the mystery, but the rest of the hook should be comprehensible. So I suggest another hook. Perhaps use the term biological marker, it does not seem to be related to genetics. The reference provided does not confirm that P50 is an indication of schizophrenia, but that P300 is. The reference says that P50 is an ERP. And that ERPs have been used in the drug development. Perhaps there is another reference that makes a more clear statement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on March 31[edit]

Genetics and the Origin of Species

  • ... that Dobzhansky explains in his book, Genetics and the Origin of Species that all life evolved through natural selection, and this revolutionary theory became critical knowledge not only for the scientific progress of genetics, but for humanity as a whole?
  • ALT1: ... that Genetics and the Origin of Species is a 1937 book by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky which novelized the theory that mutations of genes lead to rapid evolution within a species?
  • ALT2: ... that Genetics and the Origin of Species by Theodosius Dobzhansky united genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution?
  • Comment: This article has been expanded in depth with a deeper focus on mutations, speciation and also recognizing its historical impact during this time.

5x expanded by Jcf028 (talk) and RockMagnetist (talk). Nominated by Jcf028 (talk) at 01:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Prose portion was expanded fivefold between March 31 and April 4, and it far exceeds the length requirement. QPQ check fine: no previous DYKs. However, the first hook exceeds the 200-character limit and could just as well apply to Darwin. In the second hook, I don't know what is meant by "novelized". There are plenty of similar obscurities in the article. I think this article can qualify for DYK, but first needs a thorough going over by someone with a native command of English. I'll see what I can do. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am going to recuse myself from reviewing this further because I have made extensive changes to the article. I think that I will need a few more days to fix all the problems - I hope that reviewers can wait. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Carthage Treasure

Silver bowl

Created by Jononmac46 (talk), Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 10:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg interesting treasure, thank you for the find. The hook is interesting, but I couldn't find the Serbia ref, also found the bowl there that is not pictured above. I actually find that bowl picture more attractive in small size, how about a hook around it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. You need to click on "related objects" on the page to find this bowl. I thought the url took you directly there. Victuallers (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (alt1) ... that the 4th century silver bowl in the Carthage Treasure (pictured) was found in Tunisia, but it is thought to have been made in Serbia?
  • (alt2) ... that the 4th century silver bowl in the Carthage Treasure (pictured) is thought to have been made near the Danube?
I found the entry now, but think it's a bit tricky to understand, the Danube is long, and the term Serbia had many meanings in history, - a link to today's Serbia is probably not helpful. If that line, I would reword, but feel free to say something interesting about the objects rather than their provenance.
ALT3: ... that the 4th century covered silver bowl (pictured) in the Carthage Treasure was found in Tunisia but is thought to have been made in today's Serbia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with alt3 if you are OK with everything else. I think the most interesting thing about the bowl is its appearance - which is tricky to describe. It looks to me as if it was made 200 years ago not nearly 2000 Victuallers (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT3 preferred, please with the stunning licensed image, which illustrates beyond words, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
If someone would like to take over this nomination then please feel free to offer a hook Victuallers (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I offer the hook as in the discussion (which in my simple thinking could have replaced ALT3) and pray that a reviewer will come along:
ALT4: ...that the 4th-century covered silver bowl (pictured) in the Carthage Treasure is similar to objects made in today's Serbia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As I noted on that very discussion, "to me, 'today's Serbia' means modern Serbia, not the ancient land that is currently located within the boundaries of modern Serbia, so Gerda's ALT proposal is confusing to this reader". This remains true now that it's been renamed ALT4. Even more important is that the article still contains the claim that the bowl is thought to have been made in Kostolac, which does not accurately reflect the source (which is at the link Fram gives). I'm also curious why the text refers to "a silver hemispherical lidded bowl", but the (uncited) caption of the picture of the bowl (the one used for this DYK) refers to it being "one of the hemispherical covered bowls". Was there one of these, or several? The article needs to be fixed and a new hook suggested for this to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed the article and show a quote. I am not the author and say what I understand: The treasure contains two lidded (covered) bowls, one of them is held by the British Museum. What can we say for a hook: that the bowl is similar to some found across the Mediterranean Sea? Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Silver bowl

ALT5: ...that a silver bowl (pictured) from the 4th-century Carthage Treasure shows chased and hammered pastoral scenes in relief around the edge?
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)







Shammi (actress)

Created by Sortlips (talk), Ethically Yours (talk). Nominated by Ethically Yours (talk) at 09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hook short enough and catchy, article long enough, new enough. Hook is cited, though I corrected the URL for the hook so it goes directly to the proper page and you don't have to click back to find the information.
  • Symbol question.svg However, this article has some core problems: it really needs a serious copyedit before it's ready for prime time on the main page. There are punctuation and grammar issues, some awkward phrasing ("to be directed actor from Aurat, Harish.") and usage issues (such as using "Nargis Rabadi" instead of just "Rabadi" and overuse of first names instead of last names) The article is also somewhat underlinked. As it appears a more experienced editor nominated this from a basic article created by a new editor, I will give this a few days for the editors to do some cleanup, It's a very interesting article and well worth the work to get it up to par. Montanabw(talk) 07:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Thank you Montanabw for your invaluable suggestions. I have copy-edited the article myself, wikified it and now it looks in a good shape. All clear and I guess it's ready to pass. EthicallyYours! 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Much better! Good to go! Montanabw(talk) 17:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg This article has significant paraphrasing issues. Compare for example "In the sixth standard, she and her sister went to a school where the fee was Rs 11. Tatas had a wooden toy factory in the colony itself and she had her asked for jobs there. The wooden factory couldn't give young children a job but they told the sisters to work there for two to three hours after school and in return, they would pay their school fees. Her sister joined Johnson and Johnson as a secretary after she finished her school and later Rabadi also worked there after her matriculation" with "In the sixth standard, my sister and I went to a school where the fee was Rs 11. Tata's had a wooden toy factory in the colony itself and my sister and I asked for jobs there. They couldn't give us a job but they told us to work there for two to three hours after school and in return, they would pay our school fees. My sister joined Johnson and Johnson as a secretary after she finished school and I also worked there after my matriculation" - these are nearly identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    I pinged the nominator about this, @Ethically Yours:, s/he will be in a better position to fix this than the creator, who I think has a bit of a language barrier. If you see any other significant issues, maybe flag them here. Montanabw(talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Based on additional close paraphrasing issues found by Nikkimaria, I am withdrawing my approval of this article. I'm very sympathetic to the editors of this article, but unfortunately at this time I don't personally have the time to help sort out these concerns. Ping me and Nikkimaria when the article has had another whack taken at it and maybe we can re-assess. Montanabw(talk) 03:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on April 1[edit]





Bertie Reed

  • ... that Bertie Reed placed second in the 1982/83 BOC Challenge round the world yacht race, sailing the 14yr old yacht Voortrekker, beating a number of much newer yachts?

Created by Gbawden (talk). Self nominated at 07:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

  • ... welcome - I fixed the hook - bit too small - add a paragraph - we need 1500 chars of new pure text Victuallers (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg In case in wasn't clear, Victuallers is asking you to expand the article. It is currently 1026 characters of prose, while the minimum size for DYK to feature an article is 1500 characters. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]

Valls Cabinet

  • ... that the Valls Cabinet is the first French cabinet with a foreign-born prime minister?

Created by Iselilja (talk). Self nominated at 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg There appears to be a conflict between the hook and the article. The article says "Valls is the first immigrant French prime minister after 1790", but not being versed in French history, I have no idea if that means "first ever", or if there were cabinets of some form before the French Revolution that did have foreign-born prime ministers. Iselilja, could you clarify this for me? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Right. I see there are multiple problems with the hook. My source said "first prime minister born abroad"; someone else has added 1790 without giving a source (and changed wording to "first immigrant". However, it turns out my first source wasn't fully correct in asserting Valls was the first foreign born prime minister. The title prime minister was introduced in 1958; so before that the head of government had other names, but they may be referred to as prime ministers in English sources. At least one of them was not born as a French citizen: Robert Schuman (German, due to Lorraine being German area when he grew up). Even after 1958, two other prime ministers have been born abroad, but with French parents so they were French citizens at birth. So, either I have to narrow the hook, to saying something like "first prime minister in the fifth republic who was not born a French citizen" or find another hook. I'll think a little about it; it may not be so easy to find something that is catchy. (And I'll adjust the article of course). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should be focusing on whether or not someone was born a broad -- I think we should respect how the person wants to be known now. We don't want a rehash of the Chelsea Manning thing. EEng (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Pastila

Kolomna pastila

Created by Ghirlandajo (talk). Self nominated at 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg This is a bit too short. DYK check shows only 1456 characters and it needs to be at least 1500. Valfontis (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg That shouldn't be too difficult to take care of. I've left a note for the nominator. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I assumed the nominator would watch the page. Valfontis (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)



Nader Kadhim

Nader Kadhim in the 2014 Bahrain book fair

Moved to mainspace by Mohamed CJ (talk). Self nominated at 16:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC).




Jack and Ed Biddle

  • ... that warden's wife Kate Soffel, who fled with condemned brothers Jack and Ed Biddle after supplying guns and saws for their 1902 escape from the Allegheny County Jail, later took up dressmaking?

5x expanded by CasimirCrazyHorse (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 01:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

  • I should have mentioned when making the nomination: Kate Soffel is a redirect to Jack and Ed Biddle, so there's no point in linking both in the hook, and in fact it would annoy readers to follow both links and find they go the same place. Since the hook is really about Soffel, I think it is she that should be "emboldened" (so to speak), rather than they. EEng (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The link to the DYK article should be directly to the actual article rather than a redirect. Yes, they should definitely not both be linked. Since you want the bold link to be on "Kate Soffel", I changed [[Kate Soffel]] to [[Jack and Ed Biddle|Kate Soffel]]. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why I should care one way or another, but my curiosity is getting the best of me... why does this matter? EEng (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Some reasons: The bot would complain that it was unable to find the hook corresponding to article. The DYK notifications placed on the user and article talk pages would not include the text of the hook. And those notifications include a link for seeing the number of page views, but that link would be for the number of hits the actual article title got, and would not include the hits generated by people clicking on the redirect in the DYK, which are tabulated separately.

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Note to potential reviewers: this nomination has not received any kind of review yet. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, just so long as you're not one of those idiots saying that redirects are inefficient. EEng (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 3[edit]

ZunZuneo

ZunZuneo logo

Created by Designate (talk), GJL1960 (talk), Bogdangiusca (talk), and Muboshgu (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 15:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I believe the hook (which anyway has no inline citation) is not borne out by the sources. Though USAID admitted to funding the service, its objectives in doing so is alleged rather than admitted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Covert ops are not going to be confirmed by the government carrying them out, at least not before they're declassified after a long period of time. We can add words like "alleged" or whatever to the hook. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)




Christopher Senyonjo

Created/expanded by Wnt (talk). Self nominated at 01:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Note: we go by prose characters, not file size. It started at 777 characters, and it's currently 15,269, which is about a 19.7x expansion. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg While I don't personally disagree with the descriptor, I'm not sure that the use of the word "draconian" reflects WP:NPOV... Thoughts? 97198 (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the situation as described involves people being thrown out of housing and jobs because the landlords or employers could be charged, and the possibility of 14-year jail terms. But for much of the time when Senyonjo was active in opposing it, it was even worse -- initially the proponents were pushing for a death penalty. Per Draco (lawgiver) the assignment of death penalties for minor offenses is the literal etymology of "draconian". Also, it's not clear to me what you would find acceptable. Would you regard "harsh", "severe", "unusual", "punitive" to be NPOV? Wnt (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've provided an ALT1 which should clearly be NPOV, as the term "Kill the gays bill" is a bolded synonym for the article link, having been widely used in the media. I had preferred the first as more... temperate, but temper does have its limits. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"Draconian" is entirely appropriate, and I'd prefer ALT0 (so to speak). EEng (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
How about just saying "Uganda's anti-homosexuality legislation"? Avoids the NPOV issue around Wikipedia endorsing the term "draconian" (even though I think most fair minded people would consider it pretty damn draconian) and also avoids the similarly POV-ish "kill the gays" construction. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. Let's drop draconian. EEng (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this is that unadorned "anti-gay legislation" sounds like a big nothing. People use a term like that to refer to not getting a partner's Social Security benefits. This is in a very different class, and so far as I recall literally all sources went out of the way to comment about the severity of it. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just that on reflection I just think draconian and kill the gays are just trying a bit too hard to sell the product, as it were. How about "harsh anti-gay" or something? Or is there some quote, like "Ugandan anti-gay legislation (termed 'medeival' by Person X)" or something?
Well, I actually already have a quote from the California legislature which calls the anti-gay proposal "draconian".[17] The Associated Press also used "draconian" in reference to the bill in the direct context of Senyonjo.[18] Because I already have the cite for the legislature quote, I think it would be overkill (sort of a sign of Wikipedia dispute damage) to insert "draconian" in the lead paragraph and put a bunch of citations after it, but I could. [19][20][21] I mean, it's sort of like saying that it's POV to call a BLP subject a Nazi - sure, usually it is, unless he actually is one. It is widely accepted the bill is draconian, it meets the English language definition of draconian, and I don't think it's a stretch to call it that. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
How about
ALT3: ... that Christopher Senyonjo, a retired bishop of the Church of Uganda who opposed "draconian" anti-gay legislation, was honored by former US president Bill Clinton?
ALT4: ... that Christopher Senyonjo, a retired bishop of the Church of Uganda, was honored by former US president Bill Clinton for opposing "draconian" anti-gay legislation?
(I don't know if ALT4 fits the facts.) Wait, wait... I gotta run, but here's a thought -- surely Clinton would have used some choice word(s) we can quote? Maybe look into that. EEng (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked before and didn't locate the award ceremony itself, nor have any of the sources about it listed quotes that I could search. I don't think the scare quotes are necessary - I've given sufficient sources to document draconian as simply another fact from the hook that is sourced inline. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A.V. Thamarakshan

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 20:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC).


Stephen W. Doran

Created by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 19:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on April 4[edit]

Geodynamics of Venus

Moved to mainspace by Jelorr1 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Substantial article moved to mainspace with good and numerous refs. Did have an underlinked template which I have mitigated and removed. The hook fact is offline so AGF. Nice to see these out of this world articles. Good nom Graeme (note QPQ is not required but the donation is really appreciated) Victuallers (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on April 5[edit]

Pineau de Re, Leighton Aspell

Leighton Aspell riding Many Clouds

  • Reviewed: Put here
  • Comment: Aspell is being expanded at the minute, I have only done one QPQ as I haven't done any work on Pineau de Re, but I have worked on Leighton Aspell, and have adjusted the credits as such.

Created by Tigerboy1966 (talk), Matty.007 (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 13:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Hook - might it be worth saying '2014 Grand National winner', to make more of a contrast in the hook with Aspell retiring in 2007? --Bcp67 (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I Gave You Power

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 23:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length and date are fine. Referencing is good. However, the article uses an inappropriately informal style including slang that will be unclear to many readers. It also uses long strings of pronouns which make it unclear who "he" is at points. These issues will need fixed before the article can be featured. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, a QPQ is required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I like to leave my QPQs until last. I am not sure how 'nicked' classifies as slang - it's in the dictionary - but I've taken it out nonetheless and tweaked a few bits so it is clearer.--Launchballer 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Emmeline Lewis Lloyd

Lewis Lloyd to the right

  • ... that Welsh climber Emmeline Lewis Lloyd (pictured lady at left) retired in 1873 after making the first climb of Aiguille du Moine?

Created/expanded by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 10:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The wording of the hook implies that she retired immediately after the climb, but it was two years later. Number 57 21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
... and if she had retired two hours, two days, two weeks, two months or two decades later then that would need to be pointed out explicitly in a hook? Still if many are concerned then try this Victuallers (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • * (alt1) ... that the Welsh climber Emmeline Lewis Lloyd (pictured lady at left), who made the first climb of Aiguille du Moine, retired in 1873?
  • OK, that's fine by me. Number 57 18:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Nice article - new enough, long enough, well-referenced and interesting. No copyvio or neutrality issues. QPQ done. Image is in the public domain but difficult to see at thumbnail size, so hook (alt1 - I've struck the original) may run with or without picture. 97198 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)



Bro (subculture)

Fraternity brothers at a fraternity event

Created by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 01:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC).




Nirmala (novel)

  • ... that The Second Wife is the English translated title for the Hindi novel Nirmala meaning virtuous?

Created by The Herald (talk). Self nominated at 15:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Removed the image, as non-free files are not allowed in DYK. Also, please rewrite the hook to comply with the format requirements. (Note to future commentators: I did not review the article itself).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Manguard (talkcontribs) 16:!0 6 April 2014
Made the change..The Herald 16:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on April 6[edit]

Daramyn Tömör-Ochir

Created by Crispulop (talk). Self nominated at 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC).





White band disease

5x expanded by Bantol13795 (talk). Self nominated at 22:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg While a nice job of expansion and updating, this article has not been expanded 5x within the required timeframe (or, according to DYKcheck, since it was created), and there are a number of wholly unreferenced paragraphs. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • More specifically, it was 2045 prose characters before expansion, and it's now 9164, so another 1061 characters would be required for a 5× expansion. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Taylor Gold

  • ... that American snowboarder Taylor Gold was the first athlete with the surname "Gold" to compete at an Olympics?

5x expanded by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 18:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Size and date check out. DD spotchecks show no apparent CP/CV concerns. Hook fact cited and checked. Good to go. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Per that discussion, I suggest changing the hook to "... that American snowboarder Taylor Gold was one of the first two athletes with the surname "Gold" to compete at an Olympics?" Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Better would be "... that American snowboarder Taylor Gold and his sister were the first two athletes with the surname "Gold" to compete at an Olympics?" - The Bushranger One ping only 21:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Bush. Would love that for it's conciseness; if only it were true. The refs confused me (and apparently at least one other). Here are the facts, as best I can tell. He competed. His sister, another "Gold," was slated to compete but injured herself directly before competing. And yet a third "Gold competed a couple of days prior to him.Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Content copied from Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Let's change the hook to "... that American snowboarder Taylor Gold was one of the first two athletes with the surname "Gold" to compete at an Olympics?".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talkcontribs) 14:25, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we scrap the whole surname idea and instead craft something about him being part of a brother/sister pair that were both selected for Sochi and both derailed by injury? That seems more interesting hook-wise. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. How about ... that American snowboarders Taylor Gold and his sister Arielle both went to Sochi to compete in the 2014 Winter Olympics, but both saw their efforts derailed by falls? Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

End of content copied from Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've copied over an alt from Epeefleche (22:26, 9 April 2014 comment). Marking it for review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)



Drupad Borgohain

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 13:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on April 7[edit]

Mountains on Io

Hi'iaka Patera with nearby mountains with the 11 km high peak of Hi'iaka Montes to the north

Moved to mainspace by Lsuanli (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article fails on a simple test: that within five days of the date of nomination (April 10th), the character count (in my WP) was just under 11,000, while the most recent April 4th edit was just over 10,000. Lsuanli certainly did an impressive amount of work on this, both before and after the nomination, but. Ravenswing 11:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Ravenswing:: As per criteria 1d, articles that have been worked upon exclusively in a user subpage and then moved to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace. This article was moved from a user subpage to the article mainspace at 16:11, April 7, 2014 (UTC) and nominated 3 days later. It thus passes the newness test and needs a full review. --Allen3 talk 19:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)






1996 in NASCAR, Chris Raudman, Kelly Tanner

5x expanded by The Bushranger (talk). Self nominated at 00:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

  • I suggested ALT1 to keep the hook short and interesting, rather than just a list of names. 97198 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Massimo Tamburini

1994 Ducati 916

5x expanded by Dennis Bratland (talk), Brianhe (talk). Nominated by Dennis Bratland (talk) at 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC).


Ko Ko Gyi

Created/expanded by Phyo WP (talk). Nominated by Hybernator (talk) at 00:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 8[edit]

2014 IPC Powerlifting World Championships

Created by FruitMonkey (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 18:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Looking at the provided source, it appears to me that 15, not 14, records were set/equaled. Please verify I'm not crazy and adjust the article + blurb if you agree. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you're right, and have changed it as such. Thanks for raising it, Matty.007 11:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)



Joseph D. Bryant

Dr. Joseph D. Bryant

5x expanded by Jet Jaguar (talk). Self nominated at 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg No QPQ but it appears that nominator has not had any DYKs before so that's OK. Article is five-folded expanded within the last five days. Sources are mainly contemporary obituaries; I don't think such dated sources are optimal, but probably within policy as most of the article is pretty basic CV like stuff and doesn't include controversies or other things that needs contemporary judgements. There are some direct copying from the sources, but as they date back to 1914, I believe the sources are out of copyright. The fact in the hook is interesting, but not sourced! It needs an inline citation. It is mentioned and sourced in the Grover Cleveland, so maybe you could use the source there. The lede should probably incude something about the professorships he held. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added the academic credentials to the lede and an inline reference for the surgery on Cleveland. Any more suggestions are appreciated, this is the first time I've substantially expanded an article. Some of the text is copied from the sources, I basically stitched together two contemporary obituaries. I believed this was acceptable because, like you say, it's basic CV stuff from a 100-year-old source. Jet Jaguar (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)









Articles created/expanded on April 9[edit]

Derrick Gordon

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self nominated at 16:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment It might not be a bad idea to maybe mention how the Westboro Baptist Church showed up to protest, and were counter-protested by 3,000 students. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added a mention of this to the article. Sources say 1500+, so that's what I said. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was the right one, as I should not have listened to my friends who were there. In terms of where the church protested, they were actually about a quarter of a mile away from all of this, in a field, but that probably wouldn't warrant any mention here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hook fact doesn't seem to have an inline citation - it's in the lead but doesn't have a ref. Perhaps the fact should be stated more explicitly (with a ref) in the personal section? 97198 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You are right, it lacked an inline citation in the body. I've edited it so that it is now properly cited to the ESPN article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Great, thanks. Date, length and hook ref check out; well-referenced; no apparent close paraphrasing; QPQ done. 97198 (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel

Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 03:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New (9th), long enough, "within policy", no copyvio found via spotcheck (no tool), QPQ done. There is a bit of excessive quoting here—stuff that is better off paraphrased (just a note since it's outside the scope of my review). Also the end-paragraph multiple footnotes make it very hard to verify the content. That aside, the stuff in the hook needs to have immediate refs in article (see 3b). Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  18:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The required fixes have been performed. Please review again. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Verifying the hook, the source says Mad Max and not Mad Max 2, so not sure where that's from. Also the "predominantly" part needs a cite (unless you remove that one word). Rephrased ALT2 czar  00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Community Based Program Design

  • Comment: This passed AfC on April 9, 2014.

Moved to mainspace by Philroc (talk). Self nominated at 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC).


Child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Allan du Toit

  • ALT1:... that Allan du Toit was 15 years old when he wrote his published book?
  • ALT2:... that Allan du Toit was the first non-United States officer to command multinational naval forces enforcing United Nations sanctions against Iraq?
  • Comment: I've included both facts I thought were interesting from the article and a hook which is just within the 200 character limit which includes both facts.

Created by Callanecc (talk). Self nominated at 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC).


Wing-assisted incline running

5x expanded by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk), Reid,iain james (talk). Nominated by Reid,iain james (talk) at 14:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is nearly unreadable at current as most sentences has four or more clauses. Please break it into smaller, more easily understood sentences. Also the stub tag needs addressed - either just removed if the article is not missing an major aspects, or the article expanded to cover the major aspects of the theory. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @ThaddeusB: I have copyedited the article so it is more understandable to the average layperson, I have also addressed the stub and orphan templates, and linked it to other articles. Could you go over the article now? IJReid (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that definitely helped. Could you unpack this sentence?: "Additionally, examination of the work and power requirements for the behaviour if the pectoral muscles during WAIR at different angles of incline, demonstrated by increases in these requirements, both as WAIR angles increased and in the transition from WAIR to flapping flight." I am having a hard time figuring out what it is supposed to mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @ThaddeusB: I have completely changed the sentence, how understandable is it now? IJReid (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that clears up my concerns. Article length and date are good. No copyright or other policy concerns detected. Fact is interesting and supported by provided citations (source used is accepted in good faith as offline material; other online sources in article verify the info.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 10[edit]

Peder Kolstad

  • Reviewed: To come

5x expanded by Iselilja (talk). Self nominated at 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Dates and lengths both good. Hook fact and most of the article is referenced to off line sources, so AGF. Foreign language sources used for portions of article with online sourcing. Was limited by online translation but spotted no problems with copyright or plagiarism. Once the required QPQ review is completed this nomination will be good to go. --Allen3 talk 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lilpop, Rau i Loewenstein

A 1860 Lilpop & Rau advertisement; Loewenstein joined the company a decade later.

Created by Halibutt (talk). Self nominated at 08:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC).


The Last Arrow

  • ... that The Last Arrow was praised for its inventive re-imagining of the Robin Hood legend, though one reviewer felt that its "sadistic sexual torture may offend some"?
  • Reviewed: Pending

Created by Ruby2010 (talk). Self nominated at 16:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC).


Chu Teh-Chun

Chu Teh-Chun

  • ... that Chu Teh-Chun's (pictured) art sold for US$65 million in 2013?

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self nominated at 05:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC).



Saving Hope (book)

Moved to mainspace by Mohamed CJ (talk). Self nominated at 07:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Jerzy Zakulski

Jerzy Zakulski (1911-1947)

Created by Poeticbent (talk). Self nominated at 00:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg moving story on good sources, pic free. I suggest to tiighten the hook a bit:
ALT1: ... that World War II resistance fighter Jerzy Zakulski (pictured), who rescued a Jewish mother and child from the Kraków Ghetto, was executed by Poland after the war? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)






Articles created/expanded on April 11[edit]

Love Money Party

Created by WikiRedactor (talk). Self nominated at 23:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Not quite a fivefold expansion - was ~1,350 before expansion and ~5,350 after. To be eligible the article will have to be expanded some more. 97198 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added some more content to the article that pushes it past the fivefold mark, thanks for your comments! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that article meets the 5x expansion requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Mount St Mary's Church, Leeds

Mount St Mary's Church, Leeds

  • Comment: The source of the hook can be found in the Repairs section

Created by Pjposullivan (talk). Self nominated at 18:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg No QPQ, but it seems the user has not nominated articles to DYK previously so that's OK. Article is new and long enough. It is in-line sourced to several online-sources. The main source as well as some others are to homepages etc. and not the typical independent reliable sources, but I believe we can accept this kind of sources for these kind of articles (churches). The article focuses relatively heavy on the parish as opposed to church architecture, but again I think this is within policy. The paragraph on Corpus Christi Church maybe strays a bit from the topic and could be shortened. I found a small tendency to close paraphrasing, like in this sentence "lectern and credence table to allow mass to be said facing the people" (Post-Vatican sectin), so that should be rewritten. The last paragraph could have more inline-citations. The hook is short enough and interesting, but I think the latter part the mine shaft could be accessed through the sacristy? is somewhat misleading as the rest of the sentence in the article says it was blocked off during the church's construction. Maybe it should rather just say "built on top of a coal mine"? And the only source is the homepage of the Oblates, which most probably is reliable, but it's not the kind of sources we normally refer to as "reliable sources" at Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)



List of Interstate Highways in Michigan

Interstate 73 shield

  • Reviewed: Centennial Broadcasting
  • Comment: 2545 B of readable prose after expansion, 0 B before (only contained tables, infobox and references pre-expansion)

5x expanded by Imzadi1979 (talk). Self nominated at 03:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is an expansion of an article that had previously only consisted of tables. It is new enough and long enough but the image is not included in the article and therefore cannot be used at DYK. I don't think the hook is acceptable as you cannot really call a road that has not been built a new road. How about (if you add the image to the article): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Interstate 73 (marker pictured), though designated in 1991 and 1995 as part of the Interstate Highways in Michigan, has never been built?
    • @Cwmhiraeth: actually, the image is in the article in the table in the "Proposed Interstate Highways" section. I disagree that you can't call it the newest designation, since it is. No other Interstate designation applied to Michigan is newer. (All of the extant designations were approved in 1959, and all of the other proposed numbers were denied or changed in the late 1950s or 1960s.) I think you're confusing the designation (the name, legally assigned to the current corridor in Michigan by §1105(c)(5) of the National Highway Designation Act of 1995) with a physical road. I prefer the original hook. Imzadi 1979  11:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I disagree on both counts. You state "No other Interstate designation applied to Michigan is newer" and I don't dispute this, but its not what it says in the hook. I know nothing about interstate highways but I do know that the word "new" implies that something exists and is not merely designated. The image is not suitable for use because it is a non-clickable logo and there is no information on its copyright status. If you were to include it in the top right corner of the page, like Highway 94, that would be acceptable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @Cwmhiraeth: which "Highway 94"? Do you mean "Interstate 94"? As for copyright status, all Interstate Highway shields are public domain as works of the Federal Highway Administration published in in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which can be confirmed by clicking on the image as it appears here. There should be no need to explicitly repeat the I-73 shield in the infobox when the five markers chosen there (in numerical order) were picked to show the original 1957 and the current (1971/73) designs of the existing mainline and business route markers (plus the one-off marker for the Capitol Loop). The image is in use in the article, but because of its size, per WP:ALT, it has had |alt=|link= used because it is of a more decorative nature.
    • As for the hook, "Interstate 73" is the newest Interstate Highway designation in the state, and the necessary upgrades to US 127 and US 223 in Michigan have not been built to allow the designation to be signed. The state will have to build a new freeway to replace US 223, build another section of freeway to connect that to the southern end of the US 127 freeway near Jackson, and build a freeway along US 127 to connect the ends of freeway at St. Johns and Ithaca.

The hook is accurate as written. Imzadi 1979  23:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on April 12[edit]

Vaginal transplantation

Created by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 23:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough. Well cited, including the good hook. Comparing with the sources (all free online), no close paraphrasing or copyvios found. All good. Edwardx (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I pulled the hook from the queue due to misgivings about some of the medical content in the article. The hook is interesting and verified, and the if the article were about a nonmedical topic, I'd be happy to push this to the main page. The problem is that we need to apply higher standards to articles with medical information before they go on the main page (see WP:MEDRS). Concerns I have with this article (in the order that they appear in the article):
  • The lead sentence introduces the article as being about lab-grown vaginal transplantation, but then there is a one-sentence section about a vaginal wall implant of donor tissue. The lead and the article need to be consistent.
  • That sentence about the girl who got the vaginal wall implant from her mother is sourced to a 1993 article in a medical journal. The article appropriately describes it as a single case, but if Wikipedia is going to describe this case, we should not be relying on a single 21-year-old research report. Hasn't somebody discussed this case -- and possibly others -- in a review article?
  • The sources regarding the recent findings are news media articles. Can these be supplemented by something from a medically credible source (such as an editorial in a medical journal)?
  • Solid medical sourcing (ideally, a review article in a medical journal) is needed for the statements about "current techniques" that "rely on tissue harvested from other regions of the body" and that "can lead to unsatisfactory results or complications." Additionally, more context is needed for those statements -- it's not clear if the statement refers to current techniques for vaginal transplants (probably not) or current techniques for reconstruction of body parts in general (what I think it refers to). --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Orlady, I'll see what I can do about the traditional transplant case. It was a case study, so is unlikely to be subject to commentary, but has been cited a few times. I believe this source would be an acceptable for the new procedure. Please confirm. I will correct/better source the lead and info about current techniques (actually refers to vaginoplasty, though it isn't clear as you say). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    That NHS source that you identify would be a very good supplement to the existing sourcing in this article, both for the new procedure and for statements about previous attempts that were not so successful. The NHS is not a medical journal, but it is more credible as a medical source than the news outlets cited earlier. --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)



Viktor Dyk

his name on the memorial

  • ALT1:... that Viktor Dyk's memorial bust just carries his name (pictured)?
  • Reviewed: QPQ=Marina Mohnen
  • Comment: he played chess and wrote about being Czech - and Slakr suggested the expansion was done - pic is from the memorial pic in the article. Fixed faults and Alts welcome.

5x expanded by C679 (talk), Victuallers (talk), Slakr (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 08:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC).


Gabor B. Racz

Created by Atsme (talk). Nominated by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) at 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC).



Rezan Zuğurlu

Created by Rsrikanth05 (talk). Self nominated at 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Date, hook, article in general fine. Interesting topic, good to go!Alexikoua (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The wording here is off. I understand what you're trying to say, but I'd like to take a shot at rewording it:
ALT 1 ... that Rezan Zuğurlu, who spent 8 months in the infamous Diyarbakır Prison, became Turkey's youngest mayor when she was elected by Lice at the age of 25?
Alexikoua, thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I like Alt1. Don't know why I didn't word it properly. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article appears too close to that of its main source. Compare for example "a feminist and hopes her position as mayor would help elevate the status of women the district" with "an ardent feminist, hopes her position as mayor will help elevate the status of women in her district". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Changed it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mihail Lozanov

Created by TodorBozhinov (talk). Self nominated at 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Rembrandt toothpaste

  • ... that after Rembrandt toothpaste discontinued its canker sore toothpaste, the 3 oz (85 g) tube that had formerly sold for $6.99 instead sold for approximately $50, on eBay?

Created by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Sources spotchecked, creation date good, prose meets length requirement, hook checks out, section layout good. Question: do we need to say "USD xx.xx" in a DYK hoook instead of just "$xx.xx"?— Brianhe (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Teaching Assistants Association

The Teaching Assistants Association on strike in 1970

Moved to mainspace by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 17:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC).



Pappa Umanath

5x expanded by Gfosankar (talk). Self nominated at 14:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC).



100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide

Created by Yerevantsi (talk). Self nominated at 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

NOTICE: I want this article to appear on April 24, 2014, which is the Armenian Genocide remembrance day.

Child sexual abuse in Australia

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 18:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg At 1228 bytes, this one is too short too. Note that the Notable offenders section doesn't count towards the total (because it's a list). Sven Manguard Wha? 04:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Sven Manguard:, I had added a new section, named 'other studies', it is about 650 characters. OccultZone (Talk) 14:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Marty Haggard

  • ... that Marty Haggard, a son of Merle Haggard, survived being shot by a hitchhiker while driving to a filming location for a TV movie?

Created by TenPoundHammer (talk). Self nominated at 13:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article created 12 April; length is good; hook fact is interesting and checks out to a reliable source. Just awaiting a QPQ - Dumelow (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Jens Hundseid

  • ... that (to come) ?
  • Reviewed: To come

5x expanded by Iselilja (talk). Self nominated at 22:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC).


2014 Coppa Italia Final

Created by The Almightey Drill (talk). Self nominated at 15:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Dakshin Gangotri

  • ... that Dakshin Gangotri, India's first research station in the Antarctic, was an unmanned base built in 8 weeks by an 81 member team?
  • Reviewed: Morton B. Panish
  • Comment: Article was recently almost wiped clean due to copyvios. It was at ~600 chars before I started working on it.

5x expanded by Rsrikanth05 (talk). Self nominated at 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC).



André Furtado de Mendonça

Created by AntanO (talk). Self nominated at 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Charles Rondony, Léon Amédée François Raffenel

General Charles Rondony

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self nominated at 17:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Marcel Hug

Marcel Hug at the 2014 Paris Marathon

  • ... that in his nine year career, wheelchair athlete Marcel Hug (pictured) has won 19 international medals, but never a Paralympic gold?
  • Comment: Alts are welcome, I am not too keen on the hook
  • ALT1: ... that The Silver Bullet (pictured) has won the Paris, Berlin, New York and London wheelchair marathons?

5x expanded by FruitMonkey (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length and time of 5x expansion check out. Found no copyvios. QPQ not strictly required. Enough refs in general, but not for the hook facts. Image looks OK to me (although I don't have much experience in reviewing hooks with images, so it wouldn't hurt if someone double-checked it). I can't approve either hook yet; the original hook isn't cited or even directly mentioned (only implied by the medal table), and in addition the reference to a "nine year career" is strange since he took up the sport much longer than nine years ago and has been competing internationally since at least 2004 (when he won Paralympic medals). The ALT hook comes closer, but I'd prefer it saying "Marcel Hug" rather than "The Silver Bullet" and his victory in the Paris wheelchair marathon is as far as I can see not cited. (My ALT2 suggestion, below, will also need the Paris cite.)
  • ALT2: ... that Marcel Hug (pictured) has won the Paris, Berlin, New York and London wheelchair marathons? Sideways713 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In cite 10, the second paragraph of the BBC article, it opens with: "Hug, 28, who won last weekend's Paris Marathon" FruitMonkey (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I replaced the previous reference 9 with that one so it's close enough to the hook fact; it's a better ref anyway. Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Now we just need someone to approve ALT2 (or ALT1 if they like that better), and double-check the image if possible. Sideways713 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on April 14[edit]

Rolv Hauge

Created by Oceanh (talk), Manxruler (talk), Geschichte (talk). Nominated by Manxruler (talk) at 00:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

Praxis Pietatis Melica

title page

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self nominated at 22:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC).


Ada Hitchins

Uranium ore

5x expanded by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self nominated at 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC). (Expanded as of April 10th, but moved from talk:Articles for creation/Ada Hittchins on April 14, 2014)

  • Ada Hitchins needs more recognition than she received when living, and this DYK is the best example of her work with Frederick Soddy as a research assistant.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Josef Frederiks II, Adolf Lüderitz

Created (Josef Frederiks II), expanded (Adolf Lüderitz) by Pgallert (talk). Self nominated at 11:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


Hedwig Bollhagen

butter dish

  • ... that Hedwig Bollhagen took over her workshops to make pots (example pictured) in "unusual circumstances" during the Nazi era?

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 23:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article created by Victuallers on April 14, 2014 with 3,548 characters of readable prose. Well supported by external sources throughout, some in German. The two English sources suggest that the hook could be made clearer. Please take a look my ALT1 (below) for possible alternative. Good to go as is. Poeticbent talk 17:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that during the Nazi era, Hedwig Bollhagen took over a Jewish workshop in "unusual circumstances" to make quality ceramics (example pictured)?
Thanks for the review. Alt1 is much clearer. Victuallers (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)



Rockie Charles

  • Reviewed: Bob Mariano (executive)
  • Comment: Stating COI issues up front. The article's subject is my other half's uncle. I would have done the same thing for any article, regardless of who had the idea for it. Dr. Blofeld has checked the article and agrees it meets the criteria for mainspace. Feel free to pull from the queue if you think this is inappropriate.

Created by Rhondamerrick (talk), Ritchie333 (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 19:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC).


Wop (song), Don't Drop That Thun Thun

Created by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 04:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg There are now two DYKs. Since I don't feel comfortable with the idea of reviewing something for a user that is concurrently reviewing something of mine, I'll just mark this as in need of another review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Field hockey pitch

  • ... that on a field hockey pitch the penalty circle is not a circle? (See improved hook by ViperSnake151)
  • ALT1:... that from 1975 a field hockey pitch required an artificial turf? (Struck by nom, 11:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Comment: Article developed from scratch in user space.

Created by Rambo's Revenge (talk). Self nominated at 01:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook disagrees with article on the year: "However, in 1976, the International Hockey Federation (FIH) made artificial pitches mandatory at all major competitions." I'll also note that the line I quoted is awfully similar to the line from the source, and that if it were not 4:30 AM, I would be going over the article very carefully for additional close paraphrasing, something that whomever moves this to prep should probably do. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Two points. Sven, feel free to comb the article; it was 1976, the Montreal Olympics, the International Hockey Federation and only for "major competitions" (limited hockey is still played on grass as lower levels today) – there are only so many sentence permeatations of these facts! Although, you are correct in the hook should have read 1976 (the first competition on artificial was an Olympic trial in 1975 but mandatory in 1976) – I've struck anyway as I prefer the first hook. Secondly, thanks to ViperSnake151 for c-editing this hook. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Kidnapping in the United States

  • ... that kidnapping in the United States remains one of the most common crimes in the country; in 2010, the US Department of Justice reported 200,000 cases of parental kidnapping?

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 18:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

  • "most common" is mentioned in the lede of the article but it is unreferenced. I'm intrigued to see how this crime compares with shop lifting or speeding. Victuallers (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Victuallers:, it is easy to find sources for that, I've just added one. OccultZone (Talk) 20:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  :-) OK - you found a list of common crimes and kidnapping is in the list. But can you find a ref to show that it is "most common" .... bit trickier I think. Can I suggest you rephrase your lede? Victuallers (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rape in Germany

  • ... that rape in Germany has increased in the last few years, from a rate of 7.57 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 10.7 per 100,000 people in 2004?

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 18:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg At 1415 bytes (after I removed an inappropriate section that wouldn't have counted towards the total anyways), this is slightly below the minimum size for DYKs. Please expand the article a bit, so that' it's over 1500 bytes in readable prose. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done OccultZone (Talk) 20:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's be clear here, this is an increase in reported cases. It doesn't necessarily mean the number of rapes have gone up. --Soman (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Soman: Source say that Germany is having rise, at least from the period of 1995 to 2009. OccultZone (Talk) 20:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

June 4th Museum

June 4 Memorial Museum

Created by Sdee (talk). Self nominated at 20:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC).


Articles created/expanded on April 15[edit]

Albert Levy (soldier)

  • ... that Bert "Yank" Levy, who taught the British Home Guard and coauthored one of the first books on Guerrilla Warfare, said you could use a cheese cutter as a weapon?
  • QPQ: I owe you.

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk). Self nominated at 23:58, 20 April 2014‎ (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Fixed up the template: next time, please use the form near the top of T:TDYK to create it. DYKcheck gives the current size of the article at 10376 prose characters, about 3.5x over the 2892 prose characters the article contained just before expansion began on April 16. The article will need to be increased to 14460 prose characters to achieve the required 5x expansion. Given that 4084 additional characters are needed, it doesn't make sense to continue the review until this has been done, and the required QPQ supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Larry Wagner

  • ... that the success of Larry Wagner's composition Whistler's Mother-in-Law led to a permanent rift between Paul Whiteman and himself?

Created by 78.26 (talk). Self nominated at 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

Jason Healey

Jason Healey speaking at the Security & Defense Agenda

Created by I JethroBT (talk). Self nominated at 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC).


Adore You

  • ... that the music video for the song "Adore You" appears to simulate a sex tape?
  • Comment: One of my more risque hooks...

Improved to Good Article status by WikiRedactor (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 16:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


The Flick

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 00:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


Seth Blair

  • Reviewed: IOU

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self nominated at 19:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new and long enough. Hook is interesting and cited in the third paragraph of the "Career" section. The article is neutral and I can see no close paraphrasing. This is good to go, as soon as a QPQ is done. - JuneGloom Talk 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LORAN

AN/APN-4 LORAN receiver for aircraft

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

  • I can never figure out how to add images after-the-fact, so if someone knows how to do this, do you mind?
  • I got it for you, Maury Markowitz. Whenever I run up against a problem like this, I just go to a page where the markup is working and shamelessly steal said working markup. That's what I did here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Haley Farm State Park

Created/expanded by ChrisGualtieri (talk). Self nominated at 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg} Date, size, hook, refs are fine. But I'd suggest a bit longer and more interesting hook below. The alt 1 will need to be ok'ed by another reviewer, but that's just a formality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Yeah, I like that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on April 16[edit]

Colette Sheward

Created by Raintheone (talk). Self nominated at 22:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

Edith Claypole

Dr. Edith Jane Claypole

Created by Brainy J (talk). Self nominated at 21:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC).


Library War Service

  • ... that some of the first women to wear uniforms in U.S. military service overseas were librarians?

Created by Libraryowl (talk). Self nominated at 19:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Length and date checks out. Well referenced. Only one previous DYK, so no QPQ needed. But none of the three hook suggestion match the article text precisely. In regards to the original, the article says that it was some of the first women to wear uniform overseas. In regards to ALT1, it would be ok, if amended to say "U.S. military bases". In regards to ALT2, there is passage were it says 7-10 million and another that says 10+ million, but none carry the years 1918-1920 in the same sentence. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed "military bases" to "U.S. military bases", and "U.S. military service" to "U.S. military service overseas" and would be fine moving forward with either the first hook or ALT1.
  • Thanks. Symbol confirmed.svg for original hook and ALT1. --Soman (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Railway Workers Union (Iraq)

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 14:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • New enough and the hook okay as it checks out. Confirmed on page 116 of the book source cited in the article. Good to go.Rain the 1 22:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Seta Dadoyan

  • ... that the lectures of medieval historian Seta Dadoyan have been described as an "intellectual feast"?

Created by EtienneDolet (talk). Self nominated at 23:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg OK--it's new enough, and (after tweakage) just about long enough. The hook is verified, but there lies a bit of a rub: the references are hardly as strong as they should be: we're talking newsletters and such here, and the reference for the hook is a newsletter from her own (at the time?) university. In fact, and I hate to say it, there aren't that many strong references and some malevolent editor might even consider slapping a notability tag on the article: her books, for instance, could do with references to scholarly reviews to prove such notability per WP:PROF--a few testimonies reported in the AUB bulletin can't do that. I'm going to ask some experts, User:Randykitty and User:Crisco 1492, to have a look: if they think that these references provide notability they can tick this off. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm getting 1477 characters. There are two reviews of The Fatimid Armenians on Jstor, 1 and 2. Sadly I don't have Jstor access to help with the writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response, Chris. I brought the two reviews in and I would assume there might be more of the other books. As far as I'm concerned it squeaks by in terms of notability and it's a bit longer now. What do you think of the reference for the hook? Drmies (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We need something independent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Drmies, thank you for the review. There's numerous sources regarding her work and academic career. I ran into many that describe and assess her writing style and scholarly work. My references used in this article are more geared towards expanding her biography. Therefore, I have been selective in picking my sources in that regard. I mostly chose sources that elaborated on her biography. Unfortunately, there's not much on her early and personal life. I haven't even run into a birth date for her. There's loads of sources assessing her work though which, might I add, will be overwhelming for the average Wikipedia user if added to the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Etienne, I hope you understand the problem with the reference for the hook. If you add a review or two, even just as a footnote to the entry in the "Works" section, notability is not a problem anymore, in my opinion. You could consider proposing a different hook--it's just that, for an evaluative claim like this, which is to be the attraction for the reader, we really need a rock-solid source. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes that's understandable. I found a few reviews but I have don't have access to them ([22][23][24]) Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Update: I added some reviews that I was able to access. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, notability under WP:ACADEMIC is near-absent (very meager citation record in both WoS and GS), however, for her field is a low-citation field, so this is not to be construed as evidence of a lack of notability. I'm a bit less familiar with WP:AUTHOR and cannot access most of the reviews linked above and in the article. Perhaps those will make her squeak by. As for the hook, I would never use such a non-independent source for such lavish paise in an article (as opposed to using it to source some neutral and non-controversial stuff, which would be perfectly acceptable), let alone use it to source a hook. I think you should find a better reference for that or change the hook. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that medieval historian Seta Dadoyan was awarded the David Anhaght medal for her contributions to Armenian philosophical studies? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • EtienneDolet, that seems like a fine idea, but I can't find much useful in the David article. Who awards that medal? Can you provide an online reference to her getting it? Ideally, the David article would have a section on it... Sorry for giving you such a hard time. Thanks,

Anti-Zionist League in Iraq

  • ... that after it was banned, members of the Iraqi Anti-Zionist League were arrested and charged with the crime of Zionism?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I'm not sure whether to trust that all the sources I can't see online are not plagiarised, due to close paraphrasing in one place: "It blamed British and American imperialism for the rise in sectarian violence and nationalism." is supported by a citation whose source has the sentence "The league's newspaper published articles blaming British and American imperialism for the growth of nationalism and sectarian violence." The article is new, however, and sufficiently long, seems neutral to me, and has inline citations. The hook is interesting, well supported and short. If the close paraphrasing is fixed or considered acceptable, I support this DYK. --Slashme (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

GenePeeks

Created by Samwalton9 (talk). Self nominated at 17:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


The Boat Race 2004

Created by The Rambling Man (talk). Self nominated at 09:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The following has been checked in this review by Matty.007
  • QPQ needed
  • Article created by Rambling on 16 April 2014, and has 2505 characters of readable prose, however:
  • The 649 characters of 'Background' do not count towards the 1500 due to being the same as articles that have previously appeared in DYK, the article still passes with 1856 characters
  • Every paragraph is sourced (please source At the finish, following tradition, the Cambridge crew threw their cox, Kenelm Richardson, into the water in celebration in the first para of 'Race description')
  • Dup det found no copyvios on the spotchecked couple of refs
  • Article is neutral
  • Hook is interesting, and well sourced. Just a few issues. Thanks, Matty.007 13:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, nice review. I've taken a look at Wynton Kelly as a QPQ here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Black genocide

Angela Davis in 1972

Created by Binksternet (talk). Self nominated at 06:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC).



The Music of Grand Theft Auto V

Improved to Good Article status by CR4ZE (talk), Rhain1999 (talk). Nominated by CR4ZE (talk) at 06:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Ned Rifle

Created by Wikipedical (talk). Self nominated at 22:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Long enough, hook verified and interesting. The talk page should have some headers, but otherwise it is fine. It would also be nice if a source other than Kickstarter could be used as a secondary source on the hook, but I don't think that its enough of an issue to deny DYK. However, it seems that you have had at least five successful DYK nominations so far. This means that you are expected to review another DYK candidate before we can promote yours as per our "quid pro quo" requirement. Teemu08 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing the nomination. I have now reviewed another one as well. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 17[edit]

Jonny Maconie

  • Reviewed: Seth Blair
  • Comment: Please feel free to tweak the blurb.

Moved to mainspace by JuneGloom07 (talk). Self nominated at 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

Billy Boys

  • ... that Rangers football fans were warned not to sing the Billy Boys despite UEFA previously saying they were unable to do anything about it because it was a tolerated historical and social song?
  • Reviewed: Pike's Lane
  • Comment: For 3 May (Rangers' last game of the season)

5x expanded by The C of E (talk), Jmorrison230582 (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 11:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

Qiu Xigui

  • ... that Qiu Xigui's book Chinese Writing is "universally acclaimed to be the definitive overview" of Chinese palaeography?

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self nominated at 08:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

Tetrophthalmi

  • ... that four-eyed harvestmen known as Tetrophthalmi once roamed the Earth?
  • Reviewed: Wing-assisted incline running
  • Comment: Hook is (intentionally) quirky, but I believe within the community's acceptable range. If another hook if preferred, let me know.

Created by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 20:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Interesting and sure to generate clicks, although not really cited as a specific fact... A less silly, but still interesting, hook might cite the fact that "H. argus is named for the Greek monster Argos, who had 100 eyes and served the goddess Hera." (From this source) Length of article, etc, all checks out, except for "not a specific fact" as mentioned above. -- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Naked Jungle

  • ... that readers of the Radio Times voted the nudist gameshow Naked Jungle as the worst British television programme ever?

5x expanded by The Almightey Drill (talk). Self nominated at 23:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Not ready. The citation this hinges upon is to ukgameshows.com which is like Wikipedia and lacks the editorial control to be considered a reliable source, especially something controversial. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The Radio Times citation is from The Guardian. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Just so we are clear, I see "The programme was made by the same producers as CITV's children's gameshow Jungle Run, and used the same set as well as following the same format, apart from having individual winners instead of a winning team." is cited to UKGameshows.com and the page uses the cite a total of 5 times.[25] Now. I do see the Radio Times comment, but the actual line using the "same set" is not cited to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I've removed that ALT now. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wynton Kelly

Improved to Good Article status by EddieHugh (talk). Nominated by Sven Manguard (talk) at 22:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg I can't see the reference but given the quality of the article and the references I can see I'm prepared to assume good faith with this. Good to go, with the first hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Aline Rage

Moved to mainspace by Sven Manguard (talk). Self nominated at 20:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I have concerns that some of the sources may not qualify as reliable per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY; release dates could use sources independent of the subject (i.e. the console maker, without having to cite their application stores directly). Additionally, the article itself needs copyediting. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ViperSnake151 Citing the publishers for the release dates isn't a violation of PRIMARY (which says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"). Indeed, I actually consider it a best practice, because if you look at several reliable, third party sources, they may not all give the same release date. As for the copyedit, I have done one, although I did not notice any serious errors. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Bernard A. Eckhart

Eckhart Hall at the University of Chicago

Created by Teemu08 (talk). Self nominated at 17:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Date, length and hook are fine. AGF for offline references. Unable to check for copyvio but otherwise within policy. QPQ is done and image is PD. Good to go! 97198 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Al-Qaidah (newspaper)

  • ... that although it was banned the communist newspaper al-Qaidah was probably one of the most read publications in Iraq at the time?

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 14:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • A less ambiguous version: ALT 1: ... that although it was banned at the time, the communist newspaper al-Qaidah was probably one of the most read publications in Iraq in 1947? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandar Đurić

Đurić playing for the Singapore national team

  • ... that top-scoring Singaporean footballer Aleksandar Đurić (pictured) represented Bosnia & Herzegovina in canoeing at their first Summer Olympics, hitchhiking from Hungary to Spain?
  • ALT1:... that top-scoring Singaporean footballer Aleksandar Đurić (pictured) represented Bosnia & Herzegovina in canoeing at their first Summer Olympics?

Improved to Good Article status by LRD NO (talk). Self nominated at 13:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - Much improved article, interesting hook Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum

Created/expanded by Sriram Vikram (talk). Self nominated at 11:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC).


Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms

Title page from the Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms

Created by Philg88 (talk). Self nominated at 08:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Very nice new article on an interesting scholarly subject. A couple of places need inline references, which I've marked in the article. Everything else checks out. -Zanhe (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the improvement. Another issue: the hook is now 202 characters long (or 212 including "(pictured)"), exceeding the maximum length. One solution is to the original Chinese title (Haiguo Tuzhi) to reduce the length. What do you think? -Zanhe (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Or change it:
Alt1 ... that the 1843 Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms (pictured) is regarded as the first significant Chinese book on the West and aided in the creation of modern Japan's early foreign policy?
(198 b)  Philg88 talk 05:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that the Japanese portion of the hook is not directly supported by sources. It can be deduced from the article, but to be used in a DYK hook, it needs to be directly sourced. Sorry for not catching it earlier. -Zanhe (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Much as I hate to disagree with you: "Japan should embark on a "cautious, gradual and realistic opening of its borders to the Western world" and thereby avoid the mistake China had made in engaging in the First Opium War." in the last para is a directly sourced quote with the remainder of the sentence supported by the surrounding text. There is also a connection via Sakuma Shōzan but showing it involves too much synthesis as I'm unlikely to find a source. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 07:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's a big leap from a quote by an individual reformer to the conclusion that the book aided in the creation Japan's early foreign policy. As much I enjoyed reading the article and would like to see it featured on the main page, I cannot agree that the current hook is adequately supported by sources. However, I did a bit of research and found this source that explicitly says that the book had an important impact in Japan (though it does not directly mention foreign policy). I think the hook could be revised along that line, which is well supported by RS. -Zanhe (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fair point Zanhe, and an excellent source, thanks.

So: Alt2 ... that the 1843 Illustrated Treatise on the Maritime Kingdoms (pictured) is regarded as the first significant Chinese book on the West and influenced a number of Japanese Meiji reformers?


Articles created/expanded on April 18[edit]

Cameron Rahles-Rahbula

Cameron Rahles Rahbula competing in the Super G during the second day of the 2012 IPC Nor Am Cup at Copper Mountain

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk), Aussiesportlibrarian (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 00:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC).


Priddy Nine Barrows and Ashen Hill Barrow Cemeteries

Created by Rodw (talk). Self nominated at 09:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC).


Early Nationalists

  • ... that the Early Nationalists were the formal beginning of the organised national movement in India?
  • Comment: Article was moved to mainspace on 4-18-14. Note: user:Rudra john cena is listed as the original author, but that was the former name (now discarded) for user:Jim Cartar, so Jim Cartar should be listed as author

Created by Jim Cartar (talk). Nominated by MelanieN (talk) at 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Lebrunia coralligens

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, length, references and QPQ are good. I looked at the source for the hook fact, but it doesn't seem to state clearly that the relationship between the anemone and the zooxanthellae is symbiotic (although I'm not well-versed in biology/ecology so I may be missing something). It would also be nice to have a reference for "hidden anemone" in the lead to verify the colloquial name. 97198 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it doesn't say symbiotic in the source but I would say it was common knowledge as shown here in our sea anemone article. I could source it from my Invertebrate Zoology book but the information would not be specifically about this sea anemone. I have added a reference for the common name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to add in that extra source, just to be safe, to verify that general anemone/algae relationships are symbiotic with the original ref to confirm that this specific anemone does host the green algae. Thanks. 97198 (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir Awami League

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 00:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC).


Harijan Mandal

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 19:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Berkshire No. 7, Elmer S. Dailey, Priscilla Dailey

Created by ChrisGualtieri (talk). Self nominated at 18:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Wally Pipp

Wally Pipp

  • ... that in 1925, Wally Pipp (pictured) "took the two most expensive aspirin in history"?
  • ALT1:... that Wally Pipp's (pictured) benching in favor of Lou Gehrig has inspired numerous tales?
  • Reviewed: IOU
  • Comment: ALT 1 isn't great, but presented anyway. I prefer going with Pipp's quote.

5x expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self nominated at 18:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC).



Asyla

Created by Wildbill hitchcock (talk). Self nominated at 07:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Kidnapping in the United Kingdom

  • ... that statistics for kidnapping in the United Kingdom are often hard to discover due to the country's policies around the crime, but an estimated 500 cases of parental kidnapping are reported annually?

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 07:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Kidnapping in China

  • ... that since the 1980s, kidnapping in China has become a bigger issue than ever, with an estimated 70,000 children kidnapped there every year?

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 08:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on April 19[edit]

Irene Greif

Created by Rosiestep (talk). Self nominated at 23:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Well reffed, lengths and age OK, hook fact to RS and checked, no image, and QPQ done. Thanks Rosie Victuallers (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Muslim League (Opposition)

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 19:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Good start article with lots of refs including the hook fact although I could only see a snippet view so AGF. In the last sentence you say "The Party..." and its not clear which party is being referred to. No picture and age is fine. Snippet views prevented a paraphrase check. QPQ done. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Gird by-election, 1972

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 14:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC).



Blown Away (song)

    <