Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 307: Line 307:
:'''Oppose''' as per the earlier thread. Making a less accessible option mandatory is nonsensical. I don't understand how editors can be protecting the main page from prejudicial hooks while condoning disclusionary practises at DYK (i.e.: broad use of symbols and a checklist with no alt text that are literally unreadable). – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as per the earlier thread. Making a less accessible option mandatory is nonsensical. I don't understand how editors can be protecting the main page from prejudicial hooks while condoning disclusionary practises at DYK (i.e.: broad use of symbols and a checklist with no alt text that are literally unreadable). – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as it doesn't work well. Best way is to just cover all the points in your QPQ. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 08:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as it doesn't work well. Best way is to just cover all the points in your QPQ. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 08:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

== Prep 1 and Woodvale Park ==

Re: {{prep|1}}, a potential problem has been discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADumelow&type=revision&diff=867881910&oldid=867783282 here]. Could someone (with more time) help decide what to do? Nomination subpage is [[Template:Did you know nominations/Woodvale Park|here]]. I am also notifying the reviewer. Thanks. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:58, 8 November 2018

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
WP:ErrorsWP:Errors
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and processes can be discussed.

Basic DYK rules being flaunted flouted every single day

I often find articles which flagrantly fail fundamental DYK rules in the queue heading to the main page. These include simple issues like bare URLs, unreferenced paragraphs, etc. For example, we have the heavily maligned Working Definition of Antisemitism en route to main page in six hours, yet it fails a basic requirement, with bare URLs. We had just yesterday Theater Bremen which had dozens of unreferenced items. Honestly, is there any point in the QPQ process or this myriad set of DYK rules if they are ignored on a daily basis by just about everyone involved in the process? I suggest the DYK community decide whether these kind of simple tenets are worth embodying in the ruleset or whether it should just become a free-for-all, which is where QPQ is tending to drive the end result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a DYK review will cover the DYK essentials of newness, length, hook facts adequately cited, neutrality and copyvio-status. There will be many QPQ reviewers who are unfamiliar with the long list of rules and I don't think they should be criticised for missing the sort of details you are listing. Promoters will pick up some of the defects in hooks and articles and other editors such as yourself can further inspect them while they are in prep or in queue. It's a multi-stage process and hopefully, not many hooks get as far as the main page with serious defects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are basics, being overlooked on a daily basis. One problem here is that reviewers and promoters are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they continually accept and promote items which are in violation of the fundamentals. It's a multi-stage process which fails daily. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reviewers are doing a pretty good job of covering the "basics" listed on the Rules page, which only requires them to cover the five main DYK criteria. Things like bare URLs and unreferenced paragraphs are only mentioned on the Supplementary Guidelines page. (And I can hear reviewers arguing that these are only "guidelines", not "rules".) I agree with you that DYK has to enforce more quality control, but the avalanche of rules isn't making things any easier. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about streamlining some rules and guidelines then? Perhaps bring some more in line with how the project actually operates, completely bin others etc.? If one is ambitious perhaps even a more comprehensive review of all rules and guidelines and rebuilding it from the ground up. Or perhaps making a page with specific review criteria, which then gets copied to every nom and gets a tick for each point in need of being looked at(perhaps in a hat so that it isn't too huge when just opening the nom). That way badly done reviews most certainly would be very obvious and there would be clear cut things to check in any given nom, just working off a small list of clearly defined criteria basically(making it as easy as possible for reviewers, yet harder to not do it properly without anyone noticing). There certainly seems to be a need for reform but it surely would take a lot of time and discussion(and bickering probably lol), if there even is a willingness to do such a thing. At least in my opinion, for what little that is worth. 91.97.251.107 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've only done a half-dozen reviews and one was pulled from the queue recently. I fear I'm not a good enough all-around editor for reviewing, but will try to take more care. There have been discussions at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals, BTW. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a great example of why a list of specific review criteria to tick off at every nomination could be usefull, especially for less experienced people. Nothing too excessive of course; basic DYK rules, referencing, bare URLs and so on. If one knows exactly what one is supposed to check, the task is much clearer for the reviewer. If one gets spelled out exactly what is expected of a review(in form of bulletpoints to tick off in every nom or whatever really), basically anyone can do it. No matter the experience. And quality control would perhaps be improved due to reviewers actually having to, more or less, say "yes, i checked that criteria" and more importantly just knowing what exactly to check and perhaps also being more secure with the knowledge of what exactly is expected. Easy to see a pattern if someone is not actually checking what they claimed to have checked during a review as well. But perhaps i am missing something that makes it less feasible than i assume it would be. 91.97.251.107 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, we do have {{DYK checklist}}, although at the moment its use is optional. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about making something like that the norm and mandatory then? I know that it will never happen because it would actually bring accountability to QPQ reviews, something that does not seem to be wanted at all. But i don't see anything about it that could make an already terrible process even worse. But that is for you lot to decide. Cheers anyway for pointing me towards the checklist. 31.150.101.33 (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe in the value of checklists and am grateful for the extensive edit notice on the nomination pages, which I have been using as my primary checklist. (It doesn't mention the original poster's concern for references to be formatted/no bare URLs, though.) I haven't used the checklist template because it doesn't display well for me and I can't distinguish the various ticks. If the checklist template was used for every review, I fear it would add significantly to the code size of [[TT:DYK]] Template talk:Did you know which is already very large. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your link leads me to some page in cyrillic, i assume you meant to link to something else? And i did not mean to say we should use exactly that checklist, which i did not even know existed when i suggested something along those lines. And it would not even need a graphicaly displayed tick, just yes/no or even a small sentence would probably be much more helpful when things are not good enough or unclear. The way i imagine it is that at the top of every nomination you get a collapsed checklist(so the display size of any nom stays small when just taking a glance at the nom or during hook discussion etc.) with criteria deemed the most important to get an article main page ready and meeting DYK criteria. Reviewers go through the list, confirm they checked the points in need of checking. Hook discussion and so on stays like it is. Basically all i suggest is adding a collapsed box up top with the criteria to be checked at the top of every nom, which then needs a confirmation of the reviewer that they indeed have checked the criteria. A small change, or addition rather, to every nominations page; very clear, every reviewer knows exactly what to check and is expected to do, accountability for reviewers, easily seeing a pattern of bad reviews etc. But as i said before, it well may be that i am missing something that makes it less feasible than i imagine it to be. 31.150.101.33 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
31.150.101.33: I was adding to the discussion in general and did not mean to criticize you. Sorry about the bad link. Collapse boxes use javascript and add to the loading size and browser requirements. The html for the page is about 1.1 Mb, which I expect is largely due to the high amount of formatting in the text. We need that to aid discussion, but I'm cautious about adding to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did not feel criticized, no worries. By the way, pings don't work for IPs. So while a nice gesture, it does not actually do anything. But whatever in the end. Clearly no one likes my idea, so be it. Let the status quo continue with the inevitable end for this project in a few years. Not my circus in the end. Cheers anyway Reidgreg :) 91.97.244.225 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section header should read “flouted” rather than “flaunted.” Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great input Brad! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...what if we added something like "Eligibility criteria 4b": Ensure the article does not have, or does not need tagging for cleanup. GMGtalk 22:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GreenMeansGo: cleanup tags are the least of our problems. We're talking about referencing and formatting issues that are delineated at WP:DYKSG but are not read by most reviewers. Yoninah (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really concerned about tags in-and-of themselves. I'm just using them as a supremely concise way of saying "check for general problems with the article". A few thousand words of supplementary guidance is all well and fine, but that doesn't mean it's in a package that people are going to take the time to read, understand intuitively, and actually apply in practice. GMGtalk 10:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with losing the prescription is that the level of competence of some reviewers is such that they will simply overlook fundamental issues. And that will waste even more time downstream and run an even higher risk of issues making it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one added side benefit of targeting cleanup tags is that AFAIK, they are disqualifying for the main page, right? So if someone ignores this guidance, then it would seem appropriate to tag the article, notify the reviewer that they've overlooked a fundamental issue, and the nomination can proceed once the issues are fixed. Yes, fixing the issues directly is more expedient, and more in the spirit of the project as a whole, but it doesn't really give any normative feedback to the reviewer that allows them to correct the problem moving forward. GMGtalk 12:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, at the moment, the dreadful QPQ process pays no attention to "after the pass" events. Reviewers could happily live out their entire existence without passing a single decent hook but never know it. Shambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty queues yet again redux

16 hours to go and nothing lined up for tomorrow's main page. Come on admins, we need to sort this out so we can review what's going live tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there you go. three moved over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C'est forte amusante that TRM is unable to look at hooks while they are in prep, where he could alter a faulty hook himself but his action might go unappreciated, but instead feels it necessary to wait till they are in a queue, by which time he can no longer make alterations, but can add any errors he finds to his splendid "Errors" page and expect other editors to make alterations at his behest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you already know why this happens, I've mentioned it to you several times, but since there's a proclivity for last minute changes to be made before queues are constructed, it's simply not of any interest to me to review things that aren't heading to the main page. I should also note, again for the nth time, that I do not expect other editors to make alterations at [my] behest, I simply record the errors and track whether they're fixed. I note that literally hundreds of issues have made it all the way to the queues at DYK over the past few months. So instead of attempting to berate me, try spending some more time making sure the hooks that are passed and promoted to prep sets and queues are in good form. Seeking to continually personalise the issue will not get you anywhere, indeed it may be detrimental for you in the long term. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest solution, of course, is to work on the hooks while they're still on the main page prep. It's not difficult and it saves a lot of time. Merely noting them while expecting others to fix them is a waste of time and energy, energy that could be put into good use if the problems could be resolved immediately. I fail to see what's wrong TRM with simply fixing the errors yourself; I know you decline to do so for "philosophical reasons", but complaining that they haven't been resolved when it's already too late for non-admins to respond is a waste, and most of the time, they're so simple that you could have edited those hooks yourself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Did you really mean "on the main page" in your first sentence above? I would agree with you entirely if you really meant "in prep". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry; meant to say "in prep"; fixed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to keep repeating myself to you people. Your admins chased me away from here (i.e. there's no "philosophical reason" at all, so please don't just make things up). I don't care about the DYK project. I care about garbage on the main page. So I am performing quality control on the items that are on their way to the main page. None of this needs to be any kind of personalised comment on when I decide to apply my wealth of knowledge to your offerings. That I do it at all should be applauded, not berated for opting to do it at a point of my choosing. Now, crack on working harder at reducing the error rate, currently around 80 hooks per month are getting to the queues with issues, it's down to this project to get its house in order to stop that from happening, and stop personalising issues, criticising those of us who actually do care about main page integrity. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if, as you claim, the issues are so simple that you could have edited those hooks yourself then why are so many getting passed through QPQ and then making into prep sets, then being sent to queues? The problem isn't about me finding these errors at a time convenient to me, the problem is with all those who clearly aren't doing the job properly as each hook moves en route to the main page. Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, you have a good point about errors. If you are finding so many errors in the queues, the hooks do need to be checked more closely. But the question we are asking is why you are waiting until the hooks reach the queues to list the errors on your userpage, instead of doing something about them when they are still in the prep sets?
Over the last few months, we have made a special effort to load up lots of prep sets in advance. The goal, as discussed on this page, is so lots of eyes can look at them, find errors, and change them or pull them before they're locked into the queue. Nikkimaria is one editor who surveys and pulls hooks at this stage. Any editor can do that, including you. So why wait until the hooks are locked away in a queue that only administrators can touch? Yoninah (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question. What TRM is doing (or not doing) is making more work for other editors. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, per WP:VOLUNTEER, TRM is free to choose when he wishes to review hooks, and is free to post those where he wishes. If he chooses to review things only when they are in a queue, however, it's our prerogative (also per WP:VOLUNTEER) to ignore his demands to fill the queues early enough for him to review them. I for one am not going to promote a set to queue unless I have the time to review it, the demands above notwithstanding. Vanamonde (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”demands”? Dick. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't sound like a request. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So once again, please stop promoting error-ridden crap to queues, and please make sure at least o e queue is promptly filled. I understand that you cannot assure quality, that’s what I’m here to do; but do us all a favour and set the queue up as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 image: Can't make out the foreground or the background

T24 (foreground) and Z24 under attack
T24 (foreground) and Z24 under attack

@L293D: I have never seen a more fuzzy and indecipherable lead image as this one between two ships. Can a clearer image be found? Yoninah (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is problem with the lead image, maybe the hook could be removed from the prep until (or if) a clearer image is found. I was also thinking that maybe it could be moved to prep 1 without the image because only two hooks are in that prep at the moment. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: no, a clearer image of the sinking can not be found. However, I could change the image to File:T 35 as DD 935 in US seas August 1945.jpg and change the (pictured) to (sister ship pictured). Or, alternatively (I would prefer this solution), swap the Albatross hook from prep 6 with the T24 one and promote Albatross with the image instead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this image is unsatisfactory. As there are a number of nominations about German warships at the moment, we will be spreading out the different hooks over a number of sets. We are only likely to run one in the image slot, and might as well choose the best one for this purpose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped the two hooks and promoted T24 to q6 without the image and Albatross to q2 with the image. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't know you weren't allowed to move your own hooks around in prep. I agree that the T24 hook image was bad, but why can't it stay in prep 6? Especially if there are several torpedo boat hooks coming in, we should better start early. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted L293D's own reversion of Yoninah's reversion. L293D, requests can be made here if you see a problem or have a suggestion, but as Yoninah says, you should never do anything directly to your hooks once they have been promoted. I'll leave it to Yoninah to decide what should happen next, and make sure that everything is in a safe state in Preps 6 and 2 after the recent edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two sets a day?

Currently all the prep sets are full and there are 194 verified hooks, which is enough to last 24 days at the present rate of one set of eight hooks a day. With hooks being nominated at the rate of about eight each day, they will wait on average nearly a month before appearing on the main page.

Is it time to return to two sets a day for a while? This could be two sets of seven hooks if required but we would need to maintain balance in the length of columns on the main page. Can we increase the rate without reducing the quality? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two sets a day always leads to more errors and more crap being on the front page, as there's less time to scrutinise. I remember last time we went to two sets a day, I said exactly this, and was proved to be correct very quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I think come January or sometime after Christmas then this should certainly be considered, especially with the WikiCup starting again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the WikiCup causes a drop in quality, with the mad rush for points, shoddy QPQs, fumbled set prep etc. As we have seen every year. The main page is not a sandbox for such navel-gazing competitions. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should switch over to two sets a day until at least during the WikiCup. The last time we did this, reviewing quality took a noticeable dip. I'd only be comfortable supporting this if we had more people reviewing, and/or we could be more consistent in being able to resolve hook issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a false premise here, folks. Even if the quality of the average review stays exactly the same, doubling the number of hooks on the main page will double the number of errors. That's just basic math. If review quality actually declines, that should cause the error rate (errors per hook) to go up. There's no evidence for that. I don't think this is the time to switch to two sets because I don't think we have enough admins with time on their hands to handle that at the moment. But let's at least get our reasoning right. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't understand why waiting for the WikiCup to start up is a good thing. It just means that the rate of nomination gets higher. If we were to fill up all of the queues and preps, and give the nominations extra scrutiny as this was done, then we'd have six full days at two sets a day ready to go. We could designate a six- or seven-day period only to run at two sets a day, which would reduce the backlog by 48 or 56 nominations, while having better control over the quality, since the sets would have been built with the time frame in mind. It's better if this starts before the holiday season, but a 24-day backlog could be reduced to 18 or 17 if we try this. If we don't, it will just keep growing. What happens when we're behind by a month? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just migrate all the unused hooks to a DYK portal where everyone who's interested can enjoy them without fear of disrupting the quality of the main page. Or increase the entry requirements so it's not so easy to just nominate and pass a load of boring nonsense? Couple of thoughts. In the meantime, double the rate, double the number of issues heading to the main page. Currently that's around 3-4 issues per day which will naturally become (at least) 6-8 issues per day, and worse once we get into the back-scratching navel-gaze-fest that is WikiCup. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like BlueMoonset's suggestion. It would cut the backlog and would give us plenty of time to scrutinise the hooks and articles while they were in queues and preps. (The WikiCup is quite irrelevant to this discussion) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't double the number of errors going to the main page. Instead we should wait until credible and demonstrable evidence is produced that the number of errors can and will be reduced. Then the rate of offerings can double, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I prefer the idea of calling for a vote on contentious hooks or ones where the nom has basically given up - so we can fail more. Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some good thinking. About time we started exercising the right to fail simply unremarkable hooks, for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good article candidates and featured articles candidates can be failed so why not dyk articles? So long as there is a due process and no one person has to do the failing this would improve quality. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it will improve quality, but it will certainly weed out the dross. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a veto up to the subjective opinions of the regulars? No thank you! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an implicit veto - delaying the nomination. This discourages the nominator, it would be better just to have a formal vote and then it is a case of 'fix or fail' without waiting months on end. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are now 212 approved hooks, enough for 26 sets. As there is clearly not a consensus at this time to increase the rate to two sets a day, I would propose increasing the number of hooks in each set to nine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you'll need to discuss the over-heavy left-hand side of the main page with the other projects (ITN and OTD) to ensure they will match up the elongated DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, on my screen today, the DYK section is too short and could do with an extra hook to balance the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that happens from time to time, but mostly it's the other way round. You need to stick with the mediocre output right now, maybe even slow it down, until such a time that the project can demonstrate a concerted effort to reducing the number of errors getting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the prep sets are full perhaps some of the more boring hooks could be removed. If the rate of DYKs being approved is exceeding the number that can be displayed then the solution is to increase the quality control, not keep that the same and double the number of hooks, this will result in more errors and poor content on the main page; I assume the number of people checking hooks and the number of people dealing with main page errors will not double commensurately. Fish+Karate 13:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Today's main page is so unbalanced on my screen that it could accommodate two extra hooks. If shorter sets could be expanded to nine or even ten hooks, that would be a modest way to reduce the backlog of approved hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11th November

I've just noticed that Prep 1 (which would fill Queue 1), which will fall on 11th November (Remembrance Day and 100 years since the end of the First World War) has been filled however we do have 2 hooks in the special holding area for that date. One of which has a fairly appropriate lead image for the day. Could I ask if someone would be able to switch the hooks please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the prep sets are full at the moment. When one becomes vacant, we can do some hook shuffling. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special occasion hooks for November 11 promoted. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago; here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 17. Right now we have a total of 368 nominations, of which 209 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that remain from September.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion hook for November 10 (Prep 6)

Prep 6 is currently full, but a special occasion hook approved yesterday would need to be placed there if it is to run on November 10. Can someone please take care of it? I'm afraid I don't have time to do a proper promotion today. (Note: it doesn't have to be lead hook even though it has an image, but it does need to be somewhere in that set.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about a 8 November hook

I noticed this hook in the prep area here: Template:Did you know/Queue/4.

I have two concerns: (1) weasel phrasing -- known to whom? Historians? The public? Outside of the Commonwealth? Etc. (2) The link tells us that this is a proverb; "The author of the epigram is unknown, though it has been suggested it was created by a Catholic townsman, perhaps a priest, jealous of more privileged position of the nobility and the Jewry."

It's a point of view that may not be historically accurate, and the article says as much. But the hook almost reads as if it were presented in Wiki voice; it comes across as off. I may be overthinking this, but I believe that a second opinion is warranted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a anti-Semitic phantasm better known as "Paradisus Iudaerum" per this academic paper. Rather shocking we are presenting an antisemitic trope in this fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In recent times POLIN musuem's (criticized) decision to title an exhibit with just the paradise bit led to recent coverage of this trope, however the POLIN curator herself had this to say Similarly, the Wall of Words in the Paradisus Iudaeorum gallery (1569–1648) is a kind of chorus, sometimes in harmony, sometimes cacophonous. The quota-tions here play on the ambiguity of “Paradisus Iudaeorum,” a formulation from a pasquinade critical of everything in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—for-eigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers, and servants, and also Jews. To characterize the Commonwealth as a Jewish paradise is a way of saying that Jews had it “too good.” The Wall of Words, by assembling different perspectives, invites the visitor to consider to what extent and in what ways the Commonwealth was good for the Jews or bad for the Jews, worse for the Jews or better—and above all introduces the idea of a spectrum of relations, rather than a binary of good or bad. Our multivoiced approach and authored voices are critical to the openness of the narration and therefore to the openness of the historical narrative. in The Polish Review - hardly, to say the least, an endorsement of this description.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • K.e.coffman makes a valid point. This it is inappropriate to be promoting a medieval antisemitic slander at DYK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the concerns raised above, this should be pulled back to the noms and re-worked, or simply failed as inappropriate subject matter for the joke section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be a good advert for the project to put incredibly mildly. Who the hell is responsible for this potential P.R clusterfuck? The media would love it. Simon Adler (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Piotrus: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thoughts, well, while some minor rewording may be in order, some people are being overly sensitive. The phrase is not associated with modern anti-semitism; some scholars do argue that it might have been an anti-semitic slur in the past, but that hardly makes it inappropriate. Personally I always thought it was mostly a way to showcase the inequality between the nobility and enserfed peasants. I guess for now we should put it on hold why we work out what, if any, rewordings are needed on the article's talk. When this is done, hopefully in few days, we can reconsider the hook, but TBH, I think it is pretty neutral: PLC has been refereed, by many works, to by this saying (proverb); what's offensive about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Similar phrases ("down with the landlords and Jews!") were used in 20th century pogroms.[1] Saying that the "Paradisus Iudaerum" lampoon at best or at worst an anti-Semitic phantasm was the "known" state of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth - is decidedly non-neutral. It was perhaps "known" as such by anti-Semites or called such by Poles who thought Jews had it "too good" in Poland. This is not a factual statement - the grain of truth behind this lampoon is that Jews were persecuted less in the commonwealth than the rest of Europe during these years (until the pogroms of 1648) - they still led a fairly wretched existence.[2] Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is your OR that it is an anti-semitic slogan. It is just a historical saying, that yes, exaggerates the role of Jews, and that's about it. It's not controversial, and it is mostly accurate (again, except that exaggeration). A few scholars have written about that exaggeration, but that doesn't make the statement anti-semitic. (It's not like there's a consensus on this, and it's not like most scholars refer to this statement as anti-semitic). But this can be easily fixed, in the article (where I've expanded on this critique) and in the hook, which could read like this: "..that the description of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews exaggerated the situation of the Polish Jews? I think this ALT1 should address all the issues raised here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Not my OR. It referred to, unequivocally, as an antisemitic phantasm' (including antisemitic use of it in the Second Republic) by this source (English translation) , and oanna Tokarska-Bakir (Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia. Fundacja Pogranicze. - in Polish - [3]) treats this as part of a corpus of antisemitic proverbs (together with kidnapping children for using their blood for Passover and stabbing the host). It isn't merely "exaggerated" - it is an antisemtic slogan that has a "grain of truth" (specifically - not that Jews were particularly privileged in the period - but that they were not persecuted during these years in Poland as they were in the rest of Europe). Any reference to this slogan should clearly label and attribute it. There are also COMMONNAME issues here - "Paradisus Iudaeorum"/"Paradisus Iudaerum"/"paradisus judaeorum" (and other forms of Jew(s) and Hebrew in Latin) is the term mainly used in the literature.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        It's referred to as anti-semitic by a single scholar (Elżbieta Janicka), and she is hardly high profile (just a minor Polish historian, does not appear encyclopedic). I don't know if you are proficient in Polish, but I am, and I read Bakir article (which does not appear peer reviewed) and she does not say the proverb is anti-semitic, at best, xenophobic. She discusses anti-semitic myths like ones you mention, but the proverb is not discussed together with them in the same context (if you want to prove me wrong, please quote her saying it is anti-semitic). Anyway, I've added a reference to the proverb as anti-semitic, through it's not a common view (scholars agree that it exaggerates Jewish situation, but only Janicka calls it anti-semitic, and to repeat myself, Bakir does not). Anyway, do let me know what you think about the proposed hook. As for COMMONNAME, it's something we can discuss on talk, the article name is of little relevance to the DYK. And while the "Jewish paradise" part is most controversial and hence most often discussed in literature, it is only part of a wider saying, and the rest of that saying is important as well. For example, Kot in his monograph on this did not focus on the Jewish part. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Disregard of academic sources while citing in the article 19th and 18th century sources duly noted. Tokarska-Bakir was used in the article prior to me getting involved - and clearly treats this as part of a corpus of anti-Semitic sayings recorded by anthropologists - this is the subject of the chapter. You want a more explicit one? per Piotr Wróbel (who would generally be presumed to be pro-Polish AFAICT) - On the one hand, most Poles firmly believe that Poland has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and that antiSemitism has existed only on the margins of Polish society. As far as they are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum. On the other hand, most Jews, especially those on the American continent and in Western Europe, claim that Poland is one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world. Jews have often shared the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's belief that virtually all Poles received their anti-Semitism "with their mothers' milk."[4] And here is Tokarska-Bakir in English (in 2016 - intrestingly she notes she recently found a 14th century Austrian use of this trope) - Another sign of disregarding the language spoken by Jews was calling a fragment of the main exhibition Paradisus Judaeorum – “the Jewish paradise.” The expression constituted a 17th-century polemic concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels. Framing this satirical expression as the title of a part of the exhibition implicitly puts it into the mouths of contented Jews (Kot 1937, 1957).8Polin: „Ultimate Lost Object” Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I've cited T-B first, thank you very much. And what are you trying to prove? Neither of the other sources you cite/quote calls this term anti-semitic. That it is used in the context of discussions of anti-semitism does not make it anti-semitic; it is just an exaggeration, but an exaggeration is far cry from "hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination" (which is what anti-Jewism racism is). Still, why is this an issue here? I've added a reliable source to the article, citing the one author who called this phrase anti-semitic in her peer reviewed work. Isn't that enough? Anyway, I've asked you now twice if you have any issues with the revised ALT, which now clearly states the saying is an exaggeration? Do you still consider it non-neutral? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this should be replaced in the queue immediately. Clearly the current hook is unsatisfactory, this debate will never result in consensus, take it back to noms and come up with something less controversial, or just fail it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have pulled it, as that was the most urgent action. I have not added another hook, not have I reopened the DYK discussion for this hook. Fram (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened the nomination at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled another one as well

While I was busy, I pulled another one as well, coincidentally also about antisemitism (in this case, holocaust denial).

Template:Did you know nominations/Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph, 1942 @Catriona, Piotrus, and Cwmhiraeth:

  • ... that German conservatives claimed that an iconic Holocaust photograph (pictured) depicting the murder of Jews in Ukraine was a Communist forgery?

"Conservatives" does not appear in the article, nor in this context in the source[5]. The claim came from a newspaper (aimed at soldiers) which was "known for its willingness to defend Germany's Nazi past". German conservatives were in general anti-nazi, not the kind of holocaust deniers or minimizers this hook portrays.

The queue now has only 6 hooks and no picture hook. Fram (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So much for trying to double the hook rate... There was another which failed the basic criteria too but which has been tweaked about three times in the queue to finally get there. So that's 37.5% of the hooks shouldn't have made it to the queue in this one set. And then various minor issues affecting two or three of the others. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reopened the nomination at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Tigner - Prep 5

I think the hook for Marcy Tigner should be modified to clarify that interest was re-kindled later in the 1990s, otherwise the hook doesn't make sense. i.e. ... "that although Christian ventriloquist Marcy Tigner had ceased performing by 1990, interest in her recordings was later that decade rekindled by record collectors?" Pinging @Cwmhiraeth:, @Narutolovehinata5:. Without the clarification it reads "she retired, and then she was rediscovered" which isn't very unusual. My intent when creating the hook was to contrast the near timing of her retirement and the regenerated interest. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been promoted to Queue 5, so administrator action is needed. I suggest putting "later that decade" at the end of the hook for grammar's sake. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could do it, but doing that unilaterally without involving the reviewers (or other eyes) would be bad form, since that's not precisely the hook that was approved. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I don't mind what wording is used, as long as the grammar and flow are okay. With that said, in my opinion, I don't actually find "retired and then rediscovered" to be uninteresting, though maybe it could just be me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please pull the hook and return it the noms page so a better hook can be worked out? It could be replaced with something from the preps and we'll fill it in there. Pinging @Maile66: @Casliber: @Vanamonde93:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: I just saw this discussion. I'm happy to pull it if necessary, but is there a problem with 78.26's suggested modification? Vanamonde (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd rather it just ran as is if the modification is in any way controversial. I'm afraid I've already wasted far more volunteer time than I intended. Apologies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I don't know, I can't follow the years being given in the article. There's no clear date on which she retired. Her last album was in 1982. And you can't say she was rediscovered "later that decade", because she was rediscovered in the 1990s. If you move it back to the noms page, I can work with the nominator on both hookier and verifiable wording. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, I looked up the AllMusic bio, which says she was making "annual appearances" at a store. So I'm sorry, 78.26, but I'm going to pull this at the moment, at least until we have a source explicitly putting her retirement at or before 1990. Vanamonde (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I prefer the other hook I could be silent, but it would be wrong of me to not mention that the Allmusic biography merely states that she made personal appearances after her last album (1982), and that the Worlds Worst Records source says she retired 1988/1989, so therefore there's no conflict between the sources, and the hook is still supported. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also another option here: the nomination had two approved hooks, so if people find the promoted hook problematic, we could always try the other one. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Added post-EC): That would be fine with me too, let me take a look at it. Vanamonde (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FTR, I pulled this, and have returned it to the nominations page. Vanamonde (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, because since 78.26 was online I hoped to resolve the issues and replace it quickly, which I've now done. Vanamonde (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: whew! Thanks. But in the meantime, I came by to help out and promoted it to Prep 5, which I see you've reverted. Thanks x 2. Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah Queue 4 just went live an hour ago. Marcy Tigner in Queue 5 goes live tomorrow. We're OK on the timeline.. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re: DYK

Regarding DYK in the {{Article history}} template. Discussion can be found here. Ergo Sum 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 Prep 4

I moved Alfred George Pither from the first slot in Prep 4, to fill the first slot in Queue 4. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Statue of Liberty (Seattle) has been moved from Prep 1 to Queue 4 to fill the remaining vacant slot. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers, just a tweak to the blurb now needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both fixed, though it would have been a lot more helpful and less childish to simply describe the errors here. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would have been a lot more helpful if you'd fixed it properly. Without the personal attacks. Never mind. Got your number. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit rich coming from you, when you use this sort of language. I'm not interested in your accusations: I was asking you to post here so that errors are addressed faster. If you're not interested, that's your affair, and I cannot compel you. Vanamonde (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Get over yourself Vanamonde. Your accusations were perfect WP:DICK territory, as you well know. As an "admin" you should know that. You are an embarrassment to the position of admin. Oh, and if you really want to talk about DYK errors, start fixing those yourself too. I'm doing my best to notify people. You? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're not. If you were doing your best, you would post errors you spot at the places they are most visible: I watch WP:ERRORS, as you know damn well. Even so, I would watch your errors page if I had the time: at the moment I don't. We're only having this conversation because I responded to your post above. So really you're the one who needs to take a step back and take a look at why you're alienating folks who want the same things as you, but who may disagree with you on occasion. Vanamonde (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get it, you haven't got a clue about it, you haven't even tried to get it, I understand. I don't care what you think, your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again, and as for "alienating folks", well that's up to them. I'm up to nearly 700 errors fixed which were overlooked in the past five months. Move along, do something constructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for promotion: A Proposal - Support or Oppose

Proposer withdrawn, and it appears that it's a blizzard here anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The proposal; that hooks should be promoted after a vote.

The rationale; too many weak hooks are reaching the main page. A hook can reach the main page with just 3 participants - 1 creator, 1 reviewer and 1 promoter and this doesn't provide enough oversight.

The mechanism; after a hook is approved there is a week long voting process. During the voting process a hook can be supported (promote) or opposed (fail). Anyone can close the vote. No consensus results are default to promote. If a hook is failed a second hook can be voted upon. If the second hook is failed the article fails and no more hooks are permitted. A failed article can have its close reviewed by an administrator for compliance if requested.

Advantages: better hooks reach the main page, contentious hooks are identified and corrected quicker or failed, DYK regulars are not left to fulfill someone else's nomination, nominations are failed quicker and don't hang around discouraging nominators. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I agree with the sentiment of the proposal, in that too many bad hooks make it to the main page, or often times errors fail to be fixed until it is too late. With that said, I have concerns on how this will affect the backlog: even with the current system, the hook promotion backlog can extend to over a month or even longer, and adding an additional step could prolong the process only further. And remember that Wikipedia is built on consensus, not on votes, so even though the default result would be promotion, one objection (and conversely one counter-objection) could make a difference. I would not be willing to support this proposal without other reforms being put into place as well, particularly to make it more friendly for newer contributors/ Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absolutely not, we cannot have a situation where we can get us regulars potentially ganging up to block a nomination just because it may personally displease us or we may personally have an opinion that we aren't interested in it. Indeed some of the most controversial hooks we have had, which later sometimes turn out to be some of our best, would probably never have made it if we had people !voting for it as this proposal seeks to introduce. Plus the premise is misleading because we do also have the admin who moves hooks from prep to queues checking too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A good faith way of fixing a genuine problem, but this is the wrong way of doing it, I'm afraid. (1) I suspect the voting would attract very few people, and so one opposition could sink an otherwise decent nomination. (2) Quite often, it needs some investigation to discover a problem with a hook, which most people won't do (3) it's just going to add a layer of confusing bureaucracy to a process that is already complicated. Blatantly unsuitable hooks are already usually removed before they get to the Main Page via ERRORS and ERRORS2 (look a few sections above this). Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, largely per Black Kite. The proposed system cannot cope with the number of nominations we have here. Vanamonde (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - looks like a good idea at first glance but the workload is simply too big for a process like this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just what we need, the formation of another local cabal and the creation of a tempting target for canvassing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's bad enough as it is ;) - For the average simple article, it would needlessly absorb extra reviewing time which could be used elsewhere (go review GAs and FACs, if you have extra time!), and for the complex ones, we get to discuss here anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. I don't know how to improve the quality, but this isn't the way. Szzuk (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Checklist for promotion: A Proposal - Support or Oppose

The proposal; that every nomination gets a collapsed list of (to be decided) criteria reviewers have to confirm to have checked to get articles more main page ready during the nomination phase

The rationale; too many weak hooks and articles are getting close to/reaching the main page with avoidable errors, not following project rules etc. No accountability whatsoever for reviewers, no mechanism to explain or even notify reviewers of problems and issues with their reviews

The mechanism; every nomination gets a collapsed list of (to be decided) criteria to check the article for(basic DYK rules, bare URL's etc) and a reviewer has to confirm that they have indeed checked the article for said criteria

Advantages: better quality control, more fixes done during the nomination phase due to better reviews, more clarity by knowing exactly what is expected of a review, less excuses for bad reviews, ability to see a pattern in bad reviews, accountability for reviewers, possibility for feedback to reviewers to improve their work

I know this does not have a snowballs chance in hell but... you lot can't say more than no. Also, sorry for stealing the layout for this Szzuk. Keep in mind that copying is the highest form of flattery :P 85.16.161.215 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every nomination already has a collapsed checklist. Open any nomination. There is a green shaded bar that is the drop-down list you want. Two different styles of it, in fact. It's optional to use. I think what you are asking, is for its use to be mandatory, and no nomination to be promoted unless the checklist is used. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know whether the checklist works to reduce errors? Do they help ensure that checks are done with the needed care? My impression is that they don't improve review results, but I'd be just as happy to be proven wrong. Without the data, I'd be reluctant to support this proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The checklist template doesn't work well, if it worked properly it would be helpful, I think a coder needs to adapt and fix it, is there any way of requesting someone fix it? Szzuk (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did NOT suggest using that list. I suggest using something similar but reworked, more accesible and better working mechanically. But whatever, just close this. Was no hope to begin with anyway. How about someone else make some suggestions to improve the pathetic and deeply flawed QPQ process? 91.97.251.97 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the earlier thread. Making a less accessible option mandatory is nonsensical. I don't understand how editors can be protecting the main page from prejudicial hooks while condoning disclusionary practises at DYK (i.e.: broad use of symbols and a checklist with no alt text that are literally unreadable). – Reidgreg (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it doesn't work well. Best way is to just cover all the points in your QPQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 and Woodvale Park

Re: Prep 1, a potential problem has been discussed here. Could someone (with more time) help decide what to do? Nomination subpage is here. I am also notifying the reviewer. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=867882656"