Template talk:Did you know

DYK queue status

There is currently 1 filled queue. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.

"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, it.

TOC:   ↓ Go to bottom ↓     ↑ Go to top ↑

Count of DYK Hooks
Section	# of Hooks	# Verified
April 13	1
April 14	1
April 15	1
April 25	3	2
April 26	2
April 28	1
April 29	2
April 30	2	1
May 1	2	1
May 2	2
May 4	1
May 5	1
May 6	1
May 7	2
May 8	3
May 9	2
May 10	4
May 11	2	2
May 12	6	1
May 13	4	4
May 14	7	6
May 15	7	5
May 16	8	5
May 17	10	6
May 18	8	5
May 19	6	4
May 20	9	5
May 21	15	6
May 22	10	7
May 23	10	6
May 24	12	5
May 25	5	2
May 26	8	5
May 27	11	6
May 28	9	7
May 29	6	3
May 30	10	6
May 31	10	9
June 1	4	2
June 2	8	2
June 3	6	1
June 4	3
June 5	7	2
June 6	3
June 7	1
Total	236	116
Last updated 02:36, 7 June 2024 UTC Current time is 02:51, 7 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing. Further information can be found at the supplementary guidelines.

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions

How do I write an interesting hook?

Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below).

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Instructions for reviewers

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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 :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
• Save the page.
• After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

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.

Advanced procedures

How to promote an accepted hook

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area

See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for details on verifying a hook's acceptability. Promoters should not promote their own nomination or their own review. When promoting hooks intended for a particular date, keep in mind that when the number of available approved nominations exceeds 120 we switch to two sets per day, and when that number drops below 60 we return to one set per day. Check list for nomination review completeness Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: . Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed. Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting. Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed. Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated). Hook should make sense grammatically. Try to vary subject matters within each prep area. Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set. Steps to add a hook to prep In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote. In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to. Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue. Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number. Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end. Check that there's a bold link to the article. If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template. Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom Check your work in the prep's Preview mode. At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake. Save the Prep page. Closing the DYK nomination page At the upper left Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage Change |passed= to |passed=yes At the bottom Just above the line containing }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> insert a new, separate line containing one of the following: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]] Also paste the same thing into the edit summary. Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom. Save. For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook.

Handy copy sources:

• To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
• To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
• To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
• To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
• To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
• To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
• To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hook

• 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 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 should have been 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.
  • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
• Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
• 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.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

• 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

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on April 14

Cora Babbitt Johnson

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented the carving of Mount Rushmore? Source: Smith, Rex Alan (January 1, 1985). The Carving of Mount Rushmore. New York City: Abbeville Press. pp. chapter 2 and chapter 5; Fite, Gilbert Courtland (1952). Mount Rushmore. Internet Archive. Norman : University of Oklahoma Press; Merritt, Riley (2024-04-01). "Borglum's Horse Flies: The Early Opposition to Mount Rushmore". Honors College Theses.
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Borg Axoim (talk) and Crunchydillpickle (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Borg Axoim (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The nominated article has one paragraph without a citation. The uncited paragraph could be supported in part by pages 11 and 121 of Mount Rushmore by Gilbert C. Fite, it talks about the Hot Springs Star's editorial stance. https://archive.org/details/mountrushmore00univ/page/121 I also suggest that an alternate wording like "that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented..." rather than the current wording. Update:Thanks to Mary Mark Ockerbloom for working on the reference problems on the article. Do either of the two nominators, Borg Axoim or Crunchydillpickle, have any final thoughts or last minute suggestions? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• No further comments, but I think we're good to go. Letting Borg Axoim and Crunchydillpickle know that its approved. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borg Axoim, @Crunchydillpickle and @MtBotany Where does the wiki article state that the carving of Mount Rushmore was "almost prevented?" Unless there's genuine evidence from the cited source that the project was almost going to be shut down (if so, that should be added in), letters of opposition, protests, and halts do not equal "preventions." This needs to be addressed first before promotion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    • You're right, PrimalMustelid sloppy reviewing on my part. One of the project's promotors (Robinson) said that her editorials against the project, "might produce a real disaster." The strongest that could be said is something like "environmentalists delayed the carving of Mount Rushmore" and I don't know that such as statement would be surprising/interesting. If Borg Axoim or Crunckydillpickle are interested in a rewrite of the hook there is a lot of support for something like "the artist who carved Mt. Rushmore called Cora Johnson and other environmentalists opponents "horseflies"." 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    • PrimalMustelid and MtBotany, you're right that the wording may not be ideal. Two of the sources (Fite and Merritt) mention how Cora Babbitt Johnson swayed the South Dakota governor against the project and that he delayed the project severely. Given that, I think it would be fair to say something like "Cora Babbitt Johnson and other environmentalists lobbied South Dakota governor Carl Gunderson, who halted the Mount Rushmore project until the end of his term". Would that be interesting enough? It could still use some rewriting. User:Borg_Axoim 7:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• ALT1 ... that Gutzon Borglum, the carver of Mount Rushmore, referred to Cora Babbitt Johnson as an "agent of evil"? Source: Smith, Rex Alan (January 1, 1985). The Carving of Mount Rushmore. New York City: Abbeville Press. "So vitriolic were her attacks that Borglum would refer to her only as 'that Hot Springs person,' describing her as 'an agent of evil.'" Hooky, makes you want to click through and find out why. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Borg Axoim: thoughts on ALT1? If okay, review needed for it (hopefully from MtBotany). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• @theleekycauldron I think ALT1 is good. I have some small concerns about the Rex Alan Smith source, primarily that it doesn't cite info and has clear bias, but I like the rewrite. user: Borg_Axoim 12:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the efforts of Cora Babbitt Johnson delayed the construction of Mount Rushmore until 1927?--Launchballer 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 15

Roman roads in Judaea

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that modern highways in Israel still follow some of the ancient Roman roads in Judaea? Source: Roman Roads Connected Gaza, Hebron, Jerusalem and Tiberias. What Is Left of Them Today? https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/travel/2024-03-08/ty-article-magazine/.premium/roman-roads-connected-gaza-hebron-jerusalem-and-tiberias-what-is-left-of-them-today/0000018e-18fe-d8fb-abff-5dfee1380000
  • Reviewed:

Created by Owenglyndur (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Owenglyndur (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Many of the cited sources fail verification, see comments on the article's talk page.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This nomination still needs work. As it's your first nomination, I'm happy to give you time to improve this. But, at minimum, you need to settle on an interesting hook with a reliable source that you can clearly cite for it. Unsourced sections need to either be removed, or reliable sources cited inline with them. Grnrchst (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Suggestion: if you find a source for current use of the same routes, that might be interesting (enough)? FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Owenglyndur: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Marking as rejected due to a lack of response from Owenglyndur. If they do not respond in the next few days, this can be closed as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Z1720, it appears that Owenglyndur responded to your original post on their talk page on 5 May rather than here, and made a number of edits to the article that same day. Do issues remain? Also pinging original reviewer Grnrchst. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
        • I'd be ok with passing this review now, as the biggest issues with the article and hook have been sufficiently addressed. There's still some bits that lack inline citations, but some of them make clear what they're citing in the text and others are rather minor things in larger paragraphs that contain inline citations elsewhere. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
          • @Grnrchst and Owenglyndur: A hook cannot run at DYK with missing inline citations. This will need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your comments i will work on them. I will let you know once its ready. So we will be able to publish the DYK then? Owenglyndur (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Hook should be a Monty Python reference imo. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: absolutely :) i don't know the sketch well enough, but if you've got something in your back pocket, that'd be hilarious. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Owenglyndur: it looks like there are still some missing inline citations. (Also, this article could use a stiff copyedit.) The nomination can move forward when the issues are addressed (although it does take a while), but could the issues be addressed within a week? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • • • • • • Thanks for you comment, i did what i could to correct the article, If it is still not enough, you can remove it from DYK status Owenglyndur

@Grnrchst: As the original reviewer, have your concerns been resolved, and is this hook approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Yes, my concerns have been resolved, as all of the paragraphs now have inline citations. I'm happy to approve this. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: If this is approved, please add the green tick below. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grnrchst, Z1720, and Owenglyndur: I've noted some significant issues with verifiability on the article talk page, but they have not been addressed. I have not gone through the article with a fine-tooth comb so there may be other issues. Regrettably, as a Monty Python hook would have been fun, I do not think the article is ready to be approved. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Retracted my pending approval, per Richard's comments. Looking at the talk page, there's definitely some major issues with it that are keeping this from being approved. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 22

Nama assemblage

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that enigmatic early animals underwent two major extinctions in a short time right before most groups of animals alive today appeared? Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/new-ediacaran-biota-from-the-oldest-nama-group-namibia-tsaus-mountains-and-redefinition-of-the-nama-assemblage/6794D8CBE4BA23E81D29D67CE624D9C3
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/New California Republic

5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC).

• Starting review--Kevmin § 21:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Would you be able to clarify what is being stated in the second sentence of the "Biota" section? the middle portion regarding the 550ma seems to be out of place as currently written.--Kevmin § 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I agree it wasn't the clearest way to word it. The Nama Assemblage is often defined chronologically (as the fauna from ~550 to ~539 million years ago, or from the first appearance of Cloudina to the first appearance of Treptichnus), but sometimes on the basis of fauna, with holdover fauna from the previous epochs not being considered part of it, with the chronological definition then called "Terminal Ediacaran biozone". It was mostly to explain why some of the fauna isn't always considered Nama, but that could be further expanded instead in the "Definition" section. I have plans for further expansion of the article (currently in User:Chaotic Enby/sandbox), and I will be happy to reorganize the article and expand it further if needed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Based on the above, can this be approved? If not, what needs to happen to get approval? Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in the article is still a bit hard to parse for anyone reading it for the first time, but it does conform to the sources used. The article is new enough and long enough, with reliable sourcing and no close paraphrasing identified. I think we are good to go at this point.--Kevmin § 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, Kevmin, Z1720, and AirshipJungleman29: sorry for last minute pull, I checked this set earlier today but only just had access to a computer to edit... I have to say it took me a long time to figure out what was going on with this hook, it doesn't seem to bear that much resemblance to anything that's in the article at first glance. After reading some of the linked articles and based on what Kevmin says on the nom page above, I assume the sentence we're looking at for this one is "The Nama assemblage is bounded from the earlier White Sea assemblage and later Cambrian period by two major episodes of faunal turnover, considered to be pulses of the end-Ediacaran extinction". But I think there are several issues with this that make it not compliant with WP:DYKHOOK at the moment, in that there are aspects of the hook not found in the linked bolded article. Firstly, the hook links to Vendobionta, with no corresponding link to that page in the article; and it pipes that link to "enigmatic early animals", again something not discussed here. Secondly, the last part of the hook says "right before most groups of animals alive today appeared" with a link to Cambrian explosion, once again a mentioned fact and a link not found directly in the article. We know it's the Cambrian period from the article, but would also need to directly say and cite that this means when most groups of animals alive today appeared. I suspect this could be corrected with a few choice cited additions to the article, but would like to see this before we run it on the main page rather than later. A good interesting article anyway, I didn't know anything about this. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I still have a lot of stuff I plan to add to the article (including a whole section about how the Nama relates to the Cambrian explosion, cf studies such as Darroch et al. 2018) so I probably missed that not everything was in the blurb yet. I'll try to add all of this asap! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on April 24

The Skeptical Environmentalist

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Mark Lynas once pied author Bjørn Lomborg because he disagreed with the views he had set out in The Skeptical Environmentalist?

• Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/20/mark-lynas-green-movement

• ALT1: ... that sales of The Skeptical Environmentalist quadrupled after a series of negative reviews in Scientific American were published? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/423216a
• ALT2: ... that E. O. Wilson said he regretted "the time wasted by scientists correcting the misinformation created" by The Skeptical Environmentalist? Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19438150903533730
• ALT3: ... that The Skeptical Environmentalist was found to be scientifically dishonest by a Danish government agency? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/world/environment-and-science-danes-rebuke-a-skeptic.html
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ivančena

Improved to Good Article status by Arcahaeoindris (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A newly promoted GA which received an appropriate review during the GAN. Overall, everything looks good for ALT0, which I think is definitely the strongest option. I'd make a few tweaks to the wording, though, to make it more concise, define "pie" (since it's not that common as a verb), and remove the identity of the thrower (which doesn't add much as not too many readers will know who he is). That leaves us with ALT0a: ...that an environmentalist threw a pie in the face of the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist? If that works for you, this should be good to go. Sdkb ^talk 01:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Sdkb:! Your proposed alt is fine with me :) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting WP:false balance vibes from ALT0. Views sounds like an opinion, rather than misinformation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

ALT0a presumably resolves that, though, Femke. I'll cross out ALT0 to make it clearer. Sdkb ^talk 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah, you're right, should have noticed that, sorry. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

After no response to my notice on WT:DYK, I have pulled the hook due to unsourced content. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 25

Taiyin Xingjun

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Painting of Taiyin Xingjun, the Western Xia (982–1227), in Hermitage Museum.

• ... that Taiyin Xingjun (pictured) is considered the original Chinese moon goddess, even though Chang'e is sometimes viewed as an accidental resident and is also regarded as an incarnation of her? Source: 找神！拜對正廟有緣神: 拓展「神脈」，更要抱對「佛腳」！
  • Reviewed:

Created by TheGreatPeng (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

TheGreatPeng (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC).

• Hi, who will review my DYK? And how many days do I need to wait for a review? TheGreatPeng (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Please be patient. This is a volunteer effort, and the average wait time for a review could be around two to three weeks, perhaps sooner or later depending on who is active. Please be mindful of WP:DYK200. It may help to present alternate hooks for consideration. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

But it was too long to wait; even my second DYK was reviewed. TheGreatPeng (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Article is sourced well, no plagiarism, new enough, long enough, but needs another pass over for grammar, spelling, and tone. Article could also use clarification about which aspects of worship of this god apply to China/specific regions of China, and which to Taiwan. Hook should also be simplified. How about: ...that Taiyin Xingjun (pictured) is the original Chinese moon goddess, but is often confused with Chang'e?

Luiysia (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• • How about: ... that Taiyin Xingjun (pictured) is the original Chinese moon goddess, while the more famous Chang'e considered her incarnation?

TheGreatPeng (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Luiysia: pls finish your review. Thanks TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheGreatPeng: Hi, please make the changes mentioned above, the article has some issues with tone. On review, it seems like there are several quotes which are not distinguished from the text of the article, these should be incorporated into the text or at least separated into quote blocks. See: WP:QUOTE

The new hook you suggested sounds good, with slight correction: "...that Taiyin Xingjun (pictured) is the original Chinese moon goddess, while the more famous Chang'e is considered her incarnation? "

Will approve once changes are made~

Luiysia (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Luiysia: I've done my best to adjust the grammar and tone, even though I'm not a copyeditor. However, I'm unsure about how to format certain text from books or historical documents as a quote block since it's not dialogue. Could you provide an example quote block, and I'll adjust accordingly? WP:QUOTE is not helpful. Thanks! TheGreatPeng (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheGreatPeng: You can simply use the quote template: Template:Blockquote Luiysia (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Luiysia: Done, sorry for the delay. TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheGreatPeng: No worries. Approved

@Luiysia and TheGreatPeng: Many sections would deserve tags. These should be remedied before this can be promoted. (Note to self: the remaining checks still need to be done.)--Launchballer 18:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 26

Hong Kong v Inter Miami

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Lionel Messi has provoked geopolitical tensions across China, the United States, Argentina, Japan and Hong Kong due to his absence from a match?

• Source: https://theathletic.com/5277316/2024/02/15/lionel-messi-hong-kong-china/

• Reviewed:
• Comment: This is my first DYK nomination so please remind me if there is anything missing or should be improved. Thanks.

Created by Cypp0847 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

~~ J. Dann 15:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

• What a ride that article was. QPQ not needed. Earwig has a high score for copyvio detection, but that's entirely due to Messi's paragraph-long statement in the "Departure and Japan trip" section, which has an inline citation to the flagged source. Referencing is adequate and length/newness criteria fulfilled. Hook is definitely interesting and cited in source, not cited inline as exact phrasing but separately so. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Cypp0847 and Juxlos: I have tagged the article for copyediting, as there are grammar-related issues throughout the article (tenses, for instance, are very often incorrect). This needs to be resolved before a DYK run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @Cypp0847: any progress on addressing the prose issues? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    • FYI, I'm working on a copyedit and will try to have it posted later today or tomorrow. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Okay, finished my copyedit. I removed the flag icons per MOS:FLAG and shortened one of the really long quotations. The infobox image, while taken from a video released under CC, contains elements which are definitely under copyright. I suggest taking a low-resolution version (100k pixels) and moving it to en.wiki with a fair use rationale, and using that. Please ping me (here or elsewhere) if you have any questions regarding my edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 27

New reference supplied to replace Hatherill. The close wording of some phrases used in the article do not constitute copyvios. AGF with the sources, All set.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.

Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [1]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [2].

April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.