Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Wadewitz (talk | contribs)
Daamien (talk | contribs)
Line 68: Line 68:
*... that [[Mukti Bahini]] [[guerrillas]] were absorbed into the ranks of regular [[military officer]]s and [[military personnel|personnel]] upon '''[[Military history of Bangladesh|the formation of Bangladesh's armed forces]]''' in 1971-72? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="black">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*... that [[Mukti Bahini]] [[guerrillas]] were absorbed into the ranks of regular [[military officer]]s and [[military personnel|personnel]] upon '''[[Military history of Bangladesh|the formation of Bangladesh's armed forces]]''' in 1971-72? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="black">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Benedict arnold illustration.jpg|100px|right]]
[[Image:Benedict arnold illustration.jpg|100px|right]]
*... that during the [[Battle of Ridgefield]] on [[April 27]], [[1777]], [[Benedict Arnold]] (pictured) survived unharmed after being dismounted and pinned to the ground when his horse fell from nine musket wounds from a distance of only thirty yards? [[User:Daamien|Daamien]] ([[User talk:Daamien|talk]]) 03:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*... that during the '''[[Battle of Ridgefield]]''' on [[April 27]], [[1777]], [[Benedict Arnold]] (pictured) survived unharmed after being dismounted and pinned to the ground when his horse fell from nine musket wounds from a distance of only thirty yards? [[User:Daamien|Daamien]] ([[User talk:Daamien|talk]]) 03:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


=== Articles created/expanded on May 20 ===
=== Articles created/expanded on May 20 ===

Revision as of 04:07, 21 May 2008

Asik-Asik Falls
Asik-Asik Falls

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section (reproduced on the right) on the Main Page. Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old; for details see these rules.

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
Holding areaWP:SOHA
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
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}

Instructions

List new suggestions here, under the date the article was created or expanded (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. If a suitable image is available, place it immediately before the suggestion. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged.

Remember:

  • Proposed articles should:
    • not be marked as stubs;
    • contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). This is a mandatory minimum; in practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
    • cite their sources (these sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header); and
    • be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable).
  • Articles on living individuals must be carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
  • Articles with good references and citations are preferred.
  • To count the number of characters in a piece of text, you will need to use a free website like this, or an external software program that has a character-counting feature. For example, if you are using Microsoft Word, select the text from the article page (or, in the case of "Did you know" nominations, this Talk page) – not the edit page containing Wikitext – then copy and paste it into a blank document. Click "Tools" ("Review" in Office 2007), then "Word Count", and note the "Characters (with spaces)" figure. Other word processing programs may have a similar feature. (The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles, and comments and signatures in hooks on this page.)
  • Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
    • interesting to draw in a variety of readers,
    • short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
    • neutral,
    • definite facts that are mentioned in the article, and
    • preferably cited in the article with an inline citation.
  • Suggested pictures should be:
    • suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely-licensed pictures;
    • attractive and interesting, even at a very small (100px-wide) resolution;
    • already in the article; and
    • relevant to the article.
    • formatted as [[Image:image name |right|100x100px| Description]] and placed directly above the suggested fact.
  • Proposed lists should have two characteristics to be considered for DYK: (i) be a compilation of entries that are unlikely to have ever been compiled anywhere else (e.g. List of architectural vaults), and (ii) have 1,500+ character non-stub text that brings out interesting, relational, and referenced facts from the compiled list that may not otherwise be obvious but for the compilation.
  • Please sign the nomination, giving due credit to other editors if relevant. For example:
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]] and ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]] and ~~~~
  • Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
  • If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|October 7}} Thanks, ~~~~
  • If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:
Symbol Code Ready for DYK? Description
[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Yes No problems, ready for DYK
[[Image:Symbol question.svg|18px]] Query An issue needs to be clarified before the article's eligibility can be determined
[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px]] Maybe Article is currently ineligible but may only need some minor work to fix.
[[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|18px]] No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

2024-10-07T00:00:00Z

Backlogged?

This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.

Candidate entries

Articles created/expanded on May 21

Articles created/expanded on May 20

Minor disclaimer re: COI, once in the past week I saw an editor mention WP:COI here because they were related to the subject of their article: Mr. Slade mentioned me in one of his books, not this one, and besides one or two emails, I have never met him. Thanks. —SusanLesch (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that World War II fighter ace Franz Barten is credited for shooting down a total of 55 enemy aircraft?

or,

(alt hook)*... that Major William Herwerth died while on duty as lighthouse keeper at Bluff Point Light in 1881? new, self nom TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a POV. They are accused by who? Accused by Indian intelligence? Have they admitted to have a tie with ISI? If not, then why would a POV allegation be an interesting fact? --Ragib (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a loaded statement. Thus, I've changed the nom altogether. Vishnava(talk) 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC
New version *... that Bangladeshi intelligence agencies are responsible for gathering foreign intelligence, military intelligence as well as monitoring internal security? Vishnava(talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new version sounds fine by me. --Ragib (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 19

  • ... that the baesuk is a Korean traditional fruit punch made by simmering slices of Korean pear, black peppercorns, ginger, honey or sugar, and water? -Self-nom--Appletrees (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice article on a much needed area, but I am not sure about using another encyclopedia as a source. Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History says: "General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution." --BorgQueen (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ???? The references which you're mentioning are Korean encyclopedia with high credential in South Korea. The articles are written by a lot of Korean experts and scholars, not written by just some freelancers or bloggers. Since Korean cuisine is not introduced to the West as much as those of Chinese/Japanese/Vietnamese/Thai cuisines, English resources are scarce except well known dishes. If I create or expand Korean related articles to some quality from stubs, I have to use very good Korean sources. I think you mistake the hosted portals such as naver and empas with the main information providers from the encyclopedias; Doosan Encyclopedia, EncyKorea. Besides, even Korean branches of Britannica, or Pascal do not state writers' names on their articles but emphasize the brand name. I think it is a cultural difference, not arguable distrust. I don't see what is problem with my writing except minor grammatical errors.--Appletrees (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was under the impression that general encyclopedias are not considered as best references, as it is written on the page I linked above. But I just realized that the page is not a guideline or policy... I suppose it is fine to use them as long as it does not contradict other sources. (No, I am not confusing those portals with the encyclopedias.) As I said, you've written a nice article. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This hook appears to be reporting some old sports news. Anything more interesting from this annual game? --74.14.17.166 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dow Ber Meisels
Dow Ber Meisels
  • 294 character hook. Also, "between the divine Radha Krishna" doesn't make sense in English. Between the divine Radha Krishna and whom? The article implies "Radha Krishna" means "Radha and Krishna", but Americans don't know that, and they would assume Radha Krishna is one being. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 18

Swiss Federal Palace
Swiss Federal Palace
Buckland Windmill
Buckland Windmill
Brixton windmill
Brixton windmill
Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell
Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell
Rotunda Museum
Rotunda Museum
All Saints Church, Patcham
All Saints Church, Patcham
Albert Memorial
Albert Memorial
Statue of Hippolyte Delaroche seated, Frieze Facing East
Statue of Hippolyte Delaroche seated, Frieze Facing East
I removed the image, because it is a non-free, which we can't use here. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR
OR

Articles created/expanded on May 17

File:Ardents.jpg

→Another Brighton & Hove church with three possible hooks:

  • ... that most of the interior of the 19th-century St Patrick's Church, Hove has been rebuilt as a 22-bed night shelter which includes "MiPods", a variation on the 1970s "sleep capsule" concept?
  • ... that the extent to which music was used in services in the early years at St Patrick's Church, Hove led to it being referred to mockingly as "Paddy's Music Hall"?
  • ... that the north window at St Patrick's Church, Hove—a memorial to its first curate, Dr James O'Brien, and his wife—was installed 14 years before they died?
Self-nom. I don't know if the ref is good for the first (it's to the shelter's charity's own website), although it's very interesting! The second is relatively unexciting. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Oladevi, a dty whose worship may have originated in the Indus Valley Civilization, is revered as the goddess of cholera by both the Hindus and Muslims of Bengal? Vishnava (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) - striking this old nomination in favor of a new one at the bottom of this thread, as per discussion. Vishnava(talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • . Technically speaking, a person that worships multiple deities is a non-Muslim. I'm not saying that this religious practice is not a real social phenomena in Bengal, but it is an issue that is far more complex than the summarized sentence. Moreover, the two sources in the article stating that Muslims worship this deity are far from perfect (LOC document, and seemingly unsourced Banglapedia). --Soman (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree with your reasons - I personally know that what you say about the doctrine of Islam is correct, but as far as I can see, we can hardly pass judgment here on who is Muslim or not - that would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT (my thinking). That statement is supported by sources from a scholarly book, US country study and Banglapedia - which is a reputed encyclopedia in its own right and has been used as a WP:RS in many articles here. Vishnava(talk) 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think its important to differentiate between Islam as a religion and Muslims as a social community here. The link to the article Islam ('[[Islam|Muslims]]') in this case becomes a statement, namely that the wording would say that an apparent abomination of Islamic religious practice could be passed of as Islamic. I do agree that we should try to avoid going into classification schemes of our own (see for example the lengthy debate on who really is a communist at template talk:communism). But as far as theology goes, this is a quite simple case: Islam stresses before everything else the oneness of God, any polytheist practices are un-Islamic. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I love the fact that there's a goddess of Cholera and would hate to see this get missed off DYK because of problems with the hook. How about this simpler version:
          ... that Oladevi is worshipped by people in Bengal as the goddess of cholera?
        • Or:
          ... that the worship of Oladevi, the goddess of cholera, has diminished in Bengal due to advances in medicine and sanitation. -- GDallimore (Talk) 16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been asked by Vishnava to comment on this. Actually, Oladevi (or by other names) is part of a folk tradition in Bengal, irrespective of religion. While Muslims do not actually worship her, she is part of the folk culture shared by both Hindu and Muslims of rural Bengal. In fact, Cholera is called "Ola otha" (can't translate exactly, but sort of like the "spread of Ola"). I recommend using religion neutral wording, for example:
        • ... that Oladevi was revered in rural Bengal as the goddess of cholera?
        • Note the use of "was", "revered" instead of "worshipped", and "in rural Bengal" ... Oladevi isn't "worshipped", she was honored and feared, the traditions were prevalent in rural areas in the past (50 years ago??), and also in stead of using Bengali people as a whole, we should say it was a tradition in rural Bengal (which by the way includes some tribal population who are not Bengalis). Hope this solves the problems. --Ragib (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Changed "only windmill in world" to "only windmill in England" to be consistent with source. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR
OR
IMdB is not a reliable source. 02:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Link points to main Google book page. Can it point to a specific page or quote the relevant text in the footnote? Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 16

Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed length and date; reference is offline but exists (The Times). Olaf Davis | Talk 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosa Pan
Kosa Pan
Confirmed length and date; references are offline but exist ([1], [2]). Please move the reference to immediately after the fact is first mentioned in France-Thailand relations per the criteria. Does someone who's been around longer than I want to comment on the double article hook? I'm happy with it, but if we have a precedent against them I'm willing to stick to it. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's fine to have a double article hook as long as they both meet the criteria. delldot talk 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think it's necessary for the footnote to be immediately after the fact.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are few more days to expand the article. --PFHLai (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed length and date; reference is offline but exists (The Times). Olaf Davis | Talk 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cystatin C
Cystatin C
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mahadeva temple
Mahadeva temple
Which article? Please mark the DYK article in bold. Also, include a note pointing to the picture you have included. Thus, it should look like this:
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date, ref and length verified. The bolded link in the hook is a bit long; suggest something like:
Length and reference verified. Perhaps, though, we should just rename this "Non-governmental crime in Zimbabwe" and redirect this title here (Just kidding, though the point is serious). Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing of Benjamin Robins' ballistic pendulum
Drawing of Benjamin Robins' ballistic pendulum
Date, length and reference confirmed. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*bangs head on wall* Thingg 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative:
... that German mathematician Friedrich Heinrich Albert Wangerin wrote an important two volume treatise on potential theory and spherical functions, Theorie des Potentials und der Kugelfunktionen, in 1909 and 1921? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't it go on the main page? It's long enough and the ref checks out! (lol) Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've bolded the RFA instead of the log ;). Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abdominal CT scan of a patient with subcutaneous emphysema
Abdominal CT scan of a patient with subcutaneous emphysema
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created this article especially to mark my 100th DYK.--Bedford 03:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on your 100th DYK (to be)! That is truly mind blowing. Minor thing: wouldn't it be "a Union Army patrol"? delldot talk 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although I figured out last night that my 100th will actually be the Indiana State Parks one, which is suitable for 100 as well (I should have accredited myself with one I didn't.)--Bedford 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria Hotel after cyclone, 1897
Victoria Hotel after cyclone, 1897
Samuel Huston
Samuel Huston
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Article mentions the county shift but not the change in political parties. Daniel Case (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Polish-Russian relations intensified with the Polish-Lithuanian union of Lublin in the 16th century, which marked the beginning of centuries of struggle over dominance of Central and Eastern Europe between Poland and Russia? --self-nom by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Relations between Poland and Russia are recorded from the 10th century. So how can such a thing be stated as a fact? Can you find a more concrete factual hook? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This hook is based on a statement by a historian (footnoted in the article). It is also not controversial (like a hook noting the importance of Polish capture of Moscow or Katyn invasion would be) or banal (as a hook stating the relations are important and suffer from ups and downs would be). Perhaps instead of "really began" we could write "took on a new importance" or something like that to indicate that yes, there were relations since 10th century, but they were not as crucial? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can find a similar statement in the source, but not the article. It is not controversial in the sense that it probably won't piss anyone off, but you can tell yourself it is could be misleading unless one follows the sources narrative with a great deal of insight. Not as crucial? I dunno. Several branches of the Riurikids greatly relied on Polish kinship links for their power in Rus, it was common for Rus' princes to pay the Polish king to act as a mercenary captain in the 11th century, regimes changed in Rus through this Polish intervention, the Rus put down a rebellion among the Mazovians, and one interpretation of a passage in the Byzantine De Administrando Imperio has the 10th century Poles as tributaries of the Rus. Less controversial than "really began with the" would be "entered a new era". I don't like this kind of assertion in DYKs - prefer concrete things - but this at least avoids some of the problems with the first suggestion.:) Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hook could probably be fixed just by substituting "intensified" for "really began". Gatoclass (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Intensified" or "entered a new era" sound fine to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've changed it to "intensified" and am verifying on that basis. Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Can the cited source's footnote be amended either to point to p. 31 of the book, or quote the relevant text if that's impossible? Daniel Case (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link, fixed the other ref so that there is now a link for it too. Loggie (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expiring noms

Articles created/expanded on May 15

Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? The359 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume its the Woodhouse Grove School, but it doesn't look like this is a five-fold expansion within the last five days. BuddingJournalist 19:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be the Woodhouse article. I think it's skirting the edge of the 5-day rule (21stCenturyGreenstuff's edits to this article began on May 9th, but he really only reached 5x expansion today). However, the hook used here is poorly worded and uninteresting. It presents no unique factoid other than saying exactly what the school is. The359 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verified length, date and that book ref exists. —SusanLesch (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Cited source for ranch size 404s; other one doesn't have a footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ranches.org, which is used repeatedly in the article doesn't appear to be a reliable source to me.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMdB isn't an acceptable source for this sort of thing. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on May 14

ALT:*... that the first head coach, Hall of Famer Punch Imlach, has the lowest winning percentage of any Sabres coach, with 0.370 during his 120-game tenure? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article also currently has only 1400 chars of main body text by my count. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't play in here too often) but I think only content is counted, not references, etc. If so, then the length went from a bit over 900 to under 3,300. If I'm splitting hairs, someone more experienced here please overrule because it's a much nicer article now. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I goofed. I can live with that. I'm just happy the article is better, DYK would have been an added bonus. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, only a x3, sorry. Gatoclass (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hook is too specific for a general audience. "Nested irregular tuplets" will do, but you will also need a cite with a page number for that particular statement, even though there is only one reference. Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nested irregular tuplets" is fine. But isn't requiring a citation for something that's in the image of the score (in the article) and not interpretive, a bit like asking for a citation of "Lincoln had a beard" in an article with an image of Lincoln and a beard? I don't think it helps readers at all and not necessary for WP:V. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite think it's akin to "Lincoln had a beard", because for one thing everyone knows what a beard looks like but very few of us would know a "nested irregular tuplet" if we saw one. Furthermore a single example doesn't demonstrate that "nested irregular tuplets" are a feature of this piece, which is what the hook implies. So I do think you'd need a cite for this hook. If you don't have one, I think you should probably come up with a different hook that you can cite to a reliable source. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even after bolding new article, it's way too short. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also