Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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}}

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

Main page features

A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Still looking for participants. 110.136.175.79 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Up or out: "From Wikipedia's newest content"

When I was making up Prep last night, I wanted to clear some of the backlog of older articles but most of them didn't have the magic checkmark. Three items created July 2 do not have even one review. I suggest we review articles from the backlog, NOT articles recently added, until the backlog is cleared. Sharktopus ^talk 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As I say above, I noticed this problem as well. I've reviewed and moved quite a few of these, and have noted problems with a few more.

Current statistic: about 25 nominations in 2-6 July, but only 3 of those cleared for use.

However, I've now been at DYK for nearly four five hours straight and will need a break to do other things now :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, EncycloPetey, your work is appreciated! Sharktopus ^talk 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A good few more have been reviewed. Hopefully the backlog is more manageable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifying science articles

I've seen a fair number of science articles get posted to DYK lately that have absurd claims or outright misinformation in them. I'm not talking about scientific controversies, just basic facts that are wrong or extremely outdated. Can reviewers PLEASE post requests to review scientific or technical articles to the relevant WikiProjects BEFORE the DYK goes live? Otherwise our DYK section is going to erode Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already a lot of work going on just to keep up with DYK without requiring the volunteeers to post an additional set of notices. If the relevant projects wish to check in and review nominated articles, they can always do that, and it will help the overtaxed DYK project when they do. Any nominated article can be checked, often a week or more before selected for the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You mention "a fair number" of articles "lately" with "absurd claims"; please do give a few recent examples so we can see where we went wrong. We haven't had many chemistry or physics articles, but we do have a lot of articles about animal and plant species. As a member of WikiProject Life, I posted an invitation over there,[1] more eyes are always welcome. Sharktopus ^talk 21:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We could try including the specific source, page, link, etc. in the comments for all science articles? The main problem with them is that their 'facts' are often not as clear cut and easy to find as normal news, website, or book-cited articles By providing source info, we save the reviewer the hassle of searching for them inside journals.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, these should be raised at the time and on an individual basis. Even retrospectively is helpful so we can review process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no matter how well DYK volunteers review the articles and check the sources, if the article is on an obscure topic, only people from the respective WikiProjects are going to be able to tell if the articles are actually accurate or not. In the case of science articles especially, we have a problem with people using outdated sources, since those are generally the ones most likely to be accessible online (ironically). Then there is also the problem of people simply not understanding the subject they are writing about. I think if no one is available to review a technical or scientific article for accuracy, it shouldn't be approved for DYK, no matter how many citations it has. Otherwise, we are just spreading misinformation. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• The rule change you propose would be a substantial one. Could you give examples of a few recent science DYKs showing a problem with "spreading misinformation" and/or "absurd claims"? Sharktopus ^talk 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not embarrass the authors as I'm sure they were written with the best of intentions. Perhaps I should amend my proposal to say articles on obscure topics, as this doesn't seem to be much of a problem with run-of-the-mill science articles (where the reviewer would probably have a basic knowledge). And I'm sure the same problem could happen with an article on 17th century Russian literature or any other obscure topic. Basically, I would suggest that if the reviewer has no knowledge of an article's subject whatsoever, they request the nominator to get someone from a relevant WikiProject to vouch for the article. And they don't have to vouch for every detail, just vouch for the fact that the article wouldn't sound absurd to someone familiar with the field. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, there's not much the project can do for you if you want to come here insisting on horrible problems that are occuring but refuse to point out any of them specifically. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I don't know if you're referring to any of the DYKs I have written, but if you are, please tell me, so I can fix them and avoid similar problems in the future. Ucucha 12:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good articles redux

Given this trial at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_62#Introduce_Good_Articles_to_DYK which ended 22/18 after one month of voting - is it worth relooking at as a trial? There is some discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features. I'd normally not do anything but I doubt there will be clear consensus or plan of action on that page for a couple of months. So how about the following, which is modest and doesn't disrupt the existing process much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To whit - I am proposing a modest trial outlined below, that doesn't impact greatly on the current process but give us a flavour of possible how it'd work?

• Recently Listed Good Articles eligible - i.e. within five days of Listing.

• A limit of 1 (or 2) GAs per set of hooks (please specify number below).

• Change mainpage from "newest articles" (which 5x expansions aren't anyway) to "newest and newly-improved articles"

• Review after a month and see how folks feel about it.

Support

1. Support It has to be acknowledged that Wikipedia is ten years old and needs to slightly shift focus from quantity to quality. Since DYK includes quantitative improvements (i.e. 5x size) it should also allow major qualitative improvements (i.e. reaching GA status). I think a short trial as proposed is a good idea with no major risks involved and it would be fair to test the assumptions of both supporters and opposers of the proposal. GA's which already featured as DYK should be excluded IMO. I think one GA per set of hooks would suffice for the trial, but I would like to see it at the top of the group. --Elekhh (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I don't see any harm in a trial, but care must be taken so that we aren't biased towards a certain topic area. The arts and sports articles have a higher GA rate than other areas. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, with a caveat, which is probably obvious anyway, that newly made GAs that had previously been on DYK are not eligible and don't get to be featured twice. For the most part this is of no practical significance, but I have seen some articles go from new->DYK->GA very quickly (one of mine travelled this path in less than two weeks). The inclusion of GAs in DYK should be a reward for genuine old-article improvement, which is the essence of this proposal as I understand it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Great idea, let's at least try it and see how it goes. Malleus Fatuorum 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I'm a bit wary, but let's see how a trial goes. There's no harm in that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
6. I'd like to see a trial of this. It seems like a way to get some more high-quality content on the main page, encourage GA writers and reviewers, and foster a bit of crossover between DYK reviewing and GA reviewing. The Interior (Talk) 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. Elekhh hit the nail on the head - we need to shift our focus from quantity to quality. As mentioned in the section above this one, some of the articles that appear on DYK are really quite embarrassing as they haven't been checked for sanity by anyone familiar with the topic. More importantly, since DYK articles have to consist of a substantial quantity of new content, this excludes anyone who takes a slow collaborative approach to building articles - i.e. the wiki way. Instead it rewards authors who write their articles offline and then post the finished product. These articles are then rushed through DYK before anyone familiar with the topic has had a chance to look at them. Good articles have none of these problems and are much more deserving a spot on the main page. At the very least, we shouldn't be completely excluding them. Kaldari (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   Rushed? nominations typically sit for a week or two before being used. Can you provide examples of articles that haven't been checked for sanity? This isn't a DYK problem in any case, as I've seen embarassing GA approvals as well. Why haven't editors in the various projects stopped in to help with that? I typically check articles against their sources, and evaluate sources when I approve hooks. You could do the same, and so can others. With a week or more before the nominations are used, that gives you plenty of time to help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   I agree we sometimes have embarrassing GA approvals as well, but if the article has been around for a while it's far more likely that someone knowledgeable on the topic will have stumbled across it and fixed the glaring errors. Now that I've noticed the problem, I'm definitely going to try to be more active at looking at DYK nominations before they go live (rather than after), but regardless, I don't think adding in some GA articles will hurt anything. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

8. Support There are a fair number of GAs which don't have much FA potential. The proposal both allows for more of our better articles to be brought to public attention and for users who improve Wikipedia to get their work seen more by the public. I don't see it as greatly increasing the workload here as the articles will already have been vetted to some extent.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Support per Elekhh. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Sounds like a great idea, I think it will probably lead to increased interest in improving articles. Perhaps we should give the top slot with a picture to a GA. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    I would expect to see the opposite result. On Wiktionary, we feature a "Word of the Day", and this is never a fully-polished entry. When the word goes up, we get lots of activity adding trandslations and quotations, and other sorts of improvements. When an article is already at GA, I expect there to be less involvement in improvement, since there will be less opportunity for a general reader to participate if the article has alreay gone through a review process. Putting the GA first is also a bad idea, as it overemphasizes that article, limits the GA choice to a suitably-illustrated one, and prevents the new articles from having their photos featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

    My comment about "increased interest in improving articles" was in regards to people being more interested in bringing articles to GA if they knew they could get main page territory. I don't see why we shouldn't give the slot that gets the most hits to the best written article. I also don't see the problem with drawing illustrations from GAs, from a reader's perspective at least. (Of course people writing new DYK articles with good pictures or GAs without good illustrations wouldn't like it, but you can't please everybody.) Qrsdogg (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

11. If DYK were limited to new articles, this would be radical. But it isn't - it already includes articles that have substantially improved in quantity (5x expansion) - so on what basis are we excluding articles that have substantially improved in quality as measured by peer review (Good Articles)? Frankly, a lot of the opposition to this would seem WP:OWNery if exhibited on an article. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
12. I think it's good to give GAs some exposure; a trial won't hurt. Ucucha 12:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
13. It would be good to gives articles a chance to be featured if someone revamps a fairly large article (impossible to make eligible under DYK rules) and gets it to GA status. The only caveat is making sure the article is thoroughly examined because of the potential for substandard GAs. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
14. Support DYK is a good idea, but not for new articles. I'd much prefer GAs to be put in their place. At the moment, we award an article GA status, but nothing comes of it. This would be the ideal place to feature articles that are good but not as good as featured ones. We have long since passed the time of needing an incentive to create new articles. AD 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
15. Support I've thought this for a long time now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
16. I'm not so sure about the idea, but we rather ought to run a trial and I don't see any harm in that. —innotata 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
17. Support, DYK isn't working at all, and there is no longer a need to encourage new article creation on Wikipedia; there is a much greater need to encourage article improvements to Wikipedia standards than there is to put up new content that does not often meet standards and requires cleanup by experienced editors, of which we no longer have enough. Replace DYK entirely with daily GAs, perhaps two can fill the space currently occupied by DYK, and they need not be recent-- they need to be vetted by a directorate, which DYK does not have (I suggest GA-experienced editors, so the DYK crowd doesn't just move over to GA to put up inferior content on the mainpage under a different name). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
18. Support. One GA hook per set. This is a modest proposal which would help to put more quality content on the front page, while still allowing traditional DYK hooks to appear there as well. No plausible arguments have been presented as to why it could possibly be a bad thing. This is not an attempt to destroy DYK, it is not the thin end of the wedge of some conspiracy against DYK, it is just a minor and much-needed improvement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
19. Support as one of a number of options for cleaning up the DYK debacle. Tony (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
20. Run the pilot. We need to be less hesitant about trying things and getting data, vice spending years debating things. The whole project is a trial. Let's see how this thing does, even if you hate or fear it. Nothing will blow up from trying it!TCO (reviews needed) 03:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
21. Support It is time to change DYK's focus from not only encouraging new content, but to also encourage improved content. Out of all the recent proposals this one would accomplish that goal best. It is only a trial this, worst case scenario we go back to how it was before. AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
22. Support It's a step in the right direction. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The way GA has been running lately, there is little difference between GA and FA for many reviewers. Articles up for GA are often pushed to FA standards, so those articles should soon have a chance for the Main Page anyway. I also prefer a uniform set of criteria, not a this-or-that blend in DYK. It makes the entire process much easier to manage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   Please consider that in the last ten years there were 3,335 FAs produced while 12,336 GAs which means there are four times more GAs than FAs. Most FAs have been promoted without being GAs before. Those editors who wish to bring the article from GA further to FA most likely will not bother to nominate for DYK. So doubling wouldn't be frequent, probably not more than between DYKs and FAs anyway. Your other argument is about the difficulty to manage an extra rule. Well, why not be friendly towards those who think that this is a good idea and allow for a trial. Than the results could be evaluated and your concerns proven to be justified. --Elekhh (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   Your argument supports my point, in that if so many articles are making FA without ever going through GA, then the function of those two processes has become largely the same. We don't need to double-dip the highly improved articles. Featuring the new articles will do much more to encourage newbies that will featuring GAs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

2. In just the past couple of weeks I have seen proposals from Tony1 to reduce the number of DYKs per day to 8 and to replace an unspecified fraction of DYK with a large image promoting one article. SandyGeorgia now proposes getting rid of DYK entirely, to make more room for more featured content. DYK is a wonderful feature of the Main Page and it is there to promote creation of new content. There are many other wonderful goals in the world, but it would be better to do a very good job on DYK's own good goals than to start pursuing radically different good goals. Sharktopus ^talk 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   I thought DYK and GA have the same goal, which is to improve Wikipedia. This is a proposal to trial a possible improvement of DYK. If this minor proposal cannot be tested, I'm afraid the number of those calling for truly radical change will increase. --Elekhh (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   The goal of DYK is giving "publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles. This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page." That is the way we "improve Wikipedia" here. Of course the goal of every feature on the Main Page is to improve Wikipedia," but reviewing and selecting GAs for exposure is much closer to the mission and expertise of the FA section than to DYK's. Sharktopus ^talk 11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'm afraid you're misguided, GA is not about reviewing and selecting, it is about qualitative improvement. I don't think the concept of having a DYK which stands only for quantity is tenable. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   DYK is about reviewing and selecting new content of quality. But I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, and perhaps you don't either? Sharktopus ^talk 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

3. If there is a need to feature recently promoted GAs on the main page, why not propose just that as its own section? DYK's purpose is to feature new content, encouraging both new editors and frequent content creators. Diverting 25-33% of the slots to freshly-minted GAs would divert DYK from its mission, create a slippery slope towards the de facto destruction of DYK as the same tiny group of editors propose these changes over and over until something sticks, and only add to the workload of DYK reviewers with no benefit to DTK's mission. - Dravecky (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   There are about 100 times more new articles than GAs. That's 1% not 25-33%. No reason to be scared. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

4. For the same reasons I have given in all the previous repetitions of this perennial proposal (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#break, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 62#Allow some DYK hooks to go into newly promoted Good Articles?, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 33#Radical suggestion). GA status means nothing to our readers, most of them don't even know what a GA is; this proposal has always seemed to me to be more about editors wanting to scratch their own backs then about improving the experience for readers. Is there anything new in this proposal that hasn't already been gone over in the numerous previous discussions? rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   Why do you think that including Good Articles would not improve the experience for readers? Considering how abysmal some of our DYK articles are, I think we could only stand to improve from this change. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   This is already discussed at length in the numerous links I posted above; please take the time to read them. And, as Sharktopus pointed out above, take care not to bludgeon the discussion. There is no need for you guys to respond to every single opposing comment; your opinions are already known. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

5. I agree with Dravecky that this would be better done in a separate section (and I'd support it there), as mixing these two in one section would confuse and dilute the important mission of DYK in encouraging new content creation. -- Khazar (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   Isn't writing good articles part of new content creation? More importantly, isn't it about adding high quality new content, which is the one thing that Wikipedia really needs to support more of? Last time I checked, we weren't suffering from a lack of articles. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   First, what's with the badgering of each oppose vote here? Second, I think you're missing the point a bit. I agree that encouraging the refinement of articles is important, which is why I'd be fine with a section of the front page that recognizes GAs as we do FAs. But I also think that quality first-stage content creation is equally important to recognize.
   Because the truth is, Wikipedia is suffering from a lack of articles, at least on certain subjects. Check out the DYK section of my my user page, if you like; all of those appeared on DYK since May of this year, and I'd estimate that 49-50 of the 53 were wholly new. You can argue that Ali Salem (Egypt's most famous playwright), Zayar Thaw (a well-known Burmese hiphop artist, now a political prisoner), Thepchai Yong (an internationally-recognized Thai journalist who heads the country's largest TV network), or U Gambira (leader of the monks in Burma's 2007 "Saffron Revolution") don't belong in Wikipedia, I guess, and that we should stop encouraging people to create articles like those. But IMHO, you'd be wrong; to keep the encyclopedia growing, we need to continue to expand our coverage in both breadth (quantity) and depth (quality), and our awards and front page should reflect that. I get a bit tired of those interested only in the latter dropping by to deride even the idea of working on the former. -- Khazar (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

   First, it is not badgering, is a good faith attempt for dialogue. Second, the proposal is not to stop encouraging new articles or expanding articles. It is about a sensible shift after ten years of creating new content towards encouraging quality improvement. There are still 100 times more new articles created than GAs and there are 1,813,206 stubs waiting for expansion. --Elekhh (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Per the other opposes, in particular rʨanaɢ and Khazar. This suggestion is step towards disbanding DYK as it is today - by reducing the newness and the variety. Manxruler (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Per the other opposes, for a broad international and cultural representation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
8. For many of the reasons above. DYK encourages new content, and that remains an important element in the continuing development of Wikipedia. Placing featured articles on the main page promotes those who work to elevate articles to top quality level. Both elements are important. Already, FA is more prominently featured than DYK, but the current balance is appropriate in my mind. By watering down DYK with inclusion of GAs, it shifts the focus further toward the top quality element at the further expense of new content. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Per Rjanag and Khazar. cmadler (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
10. I agree with just about all of the oppose reasons given above. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
11. The point of DYK is to foster new content and feature users' work on the main page, if only for a moment. I think it works fabulously as an incentive to create new articles, and I have to oppose any proposal to modify it with GA material. Nomader (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
12. DYK should encourage new content. Personally, I would like to see new GA's replace the stagnant "On this day".--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
13. There are still tons of valid topics without substantial articles, so we need to continue encouraging new articles. Someone who comes to DYK and starts imposing his own criteria for reviews should not be surprised to find a "DYK debacle" — when you try to impose your own will on everyone else, a debacle will result that consists of your own actions. Stop making up crises when they don't exist. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Exactly. Trisakti shootings was just created a few months ago, and it is one of the more important events in Indonesian history, comparable to the Kent State shootings. Numerous other important Indonesia-related articles have not been created. Other areas are also underrepresented, including some lesser-known ethnic groups and languages (which we can hopefully all agree are notable). Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

14. Oppose - DYK is about new or newly expanded content which meets basic article criteria. GA is about gradual, rigorously qualitatively improved content which meets Good Article criteria. We agree? These things label themselves: "New Content" and "Improved Content". There you go. Whenever a GA goes through, it gets a box below, or next to the DYK box, which with decorum, announces, "The following new articles have, after extensive review and improvement, reached Good Article status: (short list)". YAY. No need to horn in on DYK, since the goals, skills, and accomplishments are, by definition, completely different! GAs are long, DYK articles are usually short! Why would you want to horn in on DYK anyways? I have the sneaking suspicion you're here discussing this because it's deucedly difficult to add a section to the main page... --Lexein (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Only good faith will bring us forward, not suspicion. Otherwise I don't really understand your arguments: How can an article have a different goal (than informing the reader) only for appearing in DYK? How is new content "completely different!" from improved content? Is not an improvement? Why would short articles not mix with long ones? Btw ....did you know that GAs can be short while DYKs can be long!--Elekhh (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

15. Oppose rʨanaɢ and Khazar sum up a lot of the valid reasons for opposing this plan. Above all, GA is just a trumped up peer-review positioning itself as FA-lite. While the peer-reviewing and improvement from GA is certainly admirable, I don't think it is distinguished enough to shoe horn into DYK and push the highlighting of new content off the main page. I understand that it won't completely replace DYK, every slot given to a GA is one less slot that goes to a new content DYK. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose - we have too many noms already, how are we going to deal with even more of them? This is going to create more work for everyone involved, not less. Apart from which, many DYKs go on to become GAs in any case. No-one with an eligible GA need miss out on a DYK as things currently stand, so what is the point? Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose Maybe tighten up a little, but we don't need to create another monster. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
18. Oppose Upping the length requirement is a simpler first step. This presents the viewer with a lottery where some clicks take them to new, short articles and others to well-developed pieces. Marking them as such in the DYK box would be messy too, as the average DYK clicker doesn't know/care about GA ratings. I also have concerns about entering into a trial with no means of measuring the success or failure of the trial.^{as discussed below} It will simply result in this same support/oppose discussion after a month Jebus989^✰ 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think if GAs are going on the front page, they should be highlighted as good articles. That is, I don't want them mixed in the same box with new articles. I think a better idea would be to highlight GAs some days and new articles other days (like every other day), or have a separate box for GAs entirely. —Designate (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  DYKs are a mix of new articles and old articles improved through quantitative expansion (5x). Adding qualitatively improved articles does not really change the current new-old mix. The difference between new, 5x-expanded and GA articles might be important for editors, but readers just want to see quality content. --Elekhh (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  The 5x expanded articles are at least 80%-new prose and usually more than that so they genuinely are 'new' content. I do support the idea of a separate box for newly promoted GAs, perhaps in a screen-wide box under the featured picture. - Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think GA has the strength to support a section on its own on the main page. I think the proposal would benefit both GA and DYK. --Elekhh (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Some folks (like me) are in favor of eliminating the "featured picture", as this is something Commons already does. I would think it could be replaced with a GA section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  FPs often get more views than DYKs, so there is clearly interest for them. Also the current poll shows that editors appreciate FPs and rather consider the main page should have more, not less images. --Elekhh (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  If people cared about providing readers with quality content, then they would be arguing for the inclusion of new FAs, which are of higher quality than GAs. Ever since this was first proposed nearly 3 years ago (and there may be earlier proposals I'm not aware of), people have been wanting this as a way to reward editors who write GAs, not as a way to improve the experience for readers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I argued with Tony1 about this over beers on Friday night. I am thinking we do this instead of reducing, and was thinking of 1 (or 2) initially so the reduction would be minor only and we could see how it goes and how folks enjoyed it. I also think that as many GAs are only reviewed by one reviewer, it might be a good way of a fair number of them just getting a second pair of eyes on them before (hopefully) going to FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • How about suggesting to Tony1 next time you get together for beers that your joint project be hosted by FA for a month instead of by DYK? They have more pixels than DYK, the mission and editor expertise there are more similar, plus this would give FA an inside track to overseeing GA. Furthermore, since writing the actual FA blurb seems to be a last-minute job with little oversight, it might be good to make FA blurbs shorter. Sharktopus ^talk 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Should we set a designated 'end' date to possibly blunt some of the opposers' wariness? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's part of the proposal, it says clearly that is for one month. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • But the proposal says nothing about how we will gauge the success/failure of all this. Is the proposal simply saying that we'll do it for a month, and then go through the same set of arguments again, or is there some objective way we can gauge whether all this wrangling has resulted in something positive? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Surely being a bit more empirical could help... I would have thought. --Elekhh (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Every empirical scientist first establishes a plan for the experiment, so that he or she will be prepared to watch for and interpret the data, and will have set up the equipment necessary to collect the data generated by the experiment. Will the data be temperture changes, and thus reuire a thermometer, or will the data be in the form of spectrum absorbancy, in which case a spectrophotometer is needed. Not being prepared means that data will likely be missed, and almost certainly misinterpreted. Setting out raw meat which then produced maggots spontaneously was long thought to support the concept of abiogenesis, principally because the empirical approach was uncontrolled and so the results were grossly misinterpreted. The proposal has no plan for interpreting data, nor even a statement about what kind of data we expect to get. Good experimental design is a fundamental part of collecteing and interpreting any data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh wow, really confusing. What have natural sciences in common with this? Are you really expecting a comprehensive social research to be set up before any modest change is tested for DYK? --Elekhh (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
            • This is a fair concern. The pending changes trial was equally vague and caused a huge mess, involving several straw polls and RfCs before eventually being ended. When proposing a trial, the absolute minimum requirement should be the length of trial and a method of determining the success or failure during the test period Jebus989^✰ 09:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think some people are missing the point here: some opposers state that DYK is for new/expanded articles, and they seem to be unable to budge on this opinion. The fact is, DYK can be for anything, if there is agreement to change it. We don't have to stick with new articles just because it's always been that way. As I noted in my support we are long past the time where we need an incentive to create new articles. Why should new articles get exposure on the main page, over someone who slaved away making a good article who will get no such time? AD 11:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In part because we are not long past the time where we need an incentive to create new articles. There are many, many thousands of topics not yet covered on Wikipedia, or that are covered only as a short stub in need of vast expansion. Thus, an incentive to find and start/expand articles on those topics should not be eliminated. Also, featuring new artiicles on the Main Page will draw attention to what may be articles in their infancy, and infants need more help and care than the adult articles that already have their diploma. Opposers are not missing the point; we're disagreeing with the premise behind it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But the proposal does not replace any of these. It is a modest shift. I fully agree that there is huge scope to expand stubs (55% of articles are stubs!), but the need to provide incentive for new articles has massively decreased, and is time to provide a bit more incentive for quality improvement. I can't see any vital article missing. --Elekhh (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember the beer with Cas, and putting the point that the focus should move from quantity (achieving a set number of DYKs per day come what may), to quality (properly reviewing each nom and exposing it only if it meets the policies and quality benchmarks); in other words, the main-page exposure time for DYKs should be a movable valve to match the number of DYKs that have passed review at any particular time, and no more stress-outs for the queuing admins. I'm not sure Cas agreed entirely with my view.

On another matter he contended—that GAs are themselves newly expanded and/or newly improved articles—I was skeptical, but went away thinking about it and was won over. To have even one GA as a DYK each day seems like a win–win, for these reasons:

(1) DYK is the natural start-point for the trajectory towards GA, both in terms of individual articles and as a training ground for editors;

(2) DYK articles via the existing rules would benefit by association with one GA per day on the main page;

(3) DYK, let's be frank, loses reviewers at least as fast as it gains them, and can't nearly manage the flow—a good way of dealing with this would be to get DYK and GA to work with each other, not against each other;

(4) GA really really needs more official recognition: it is second to FAC as a model for article quality, and creating a five-day window for one newly promoted GA per day to be DYKed would lift GA's presence in the project and motivate more editors to participate at both forums; and (5) WP:peer review is moribund, isn't it? We need to coordinate and strengthen the fabric of article improvement, not maintain such separate islands. Tony (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat separate but not really thought

Regardless of the vote above, I think the wording on the Main Page should be changed to some form of "newest and newly-improved articles", as 5x expansions are never "new" articles. Am I alone in thinking this? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It says "From Wikipedia's newest content:", which is not the same as "new articles". The content is new, in the form of at least 4/5 new prose. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What Adabow said. Furthermore, adding "newly-improved" is not a good idea, as it opens the door to precisely the kind of nominations DYK has been rejecting for years (e.g., articles that have been copyedited or otherwise improved without any substantial expansion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If the proposal above is successful, I think we should just axe the text completely. Readers don't care if the articles are new or not, they just want to read interesting, well-written articles. Kaldari (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what readers want?

If all readers want is to read well-written content, then why not just have four TFAs? DYK is meant to serve a different purpose than what you are insisting on (as are ITN and OTD, which also are not necessarily showing interesting or well-written articles). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To Rjanag I will outline my idea of how the article treadmill has worked at wikipedia - essentially getting a bite of the mainpage cherry has been great at pushing editors that little bit, from stub or nonexistent article to DYK, and then finally at the last hurdle, FAC. Over the past few years, FAC has become more and more exacting. I personally don't see this as a bad thing but as a natural development as wikipedia looks more and more like a professional encyclopedia. In this production line, GA has become more and more important as a waypoint for review on the road to FA status. I was thinking that as GA status can be achieved with only one reviewer, that sending a few through DYK might be a good carrots-rather-than-sticks approach at getting more eyes on them and giving them more of a shove to FAC. I have always been happy having good content which has some incompleteness accessible from the mainpage so that the reader sees WP as a work in progress. Anyway, help in bridging the step between GA and FA is what I see as more of a development in the past 18-24 months as opposed to previously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Related RfC which has been announced to people at FA but not here at DYK

People including many commenting here are !Voting on Main Page features. The RfC asks what features of the Main Page should be eliminated, including DYK. It seems to me a bit off to be !voting here to change DYK and !voting there to eliminate DYK entirely. I also notice that when the RfC listed the goals of the Main Page, somehow the goal of DYK, to motivate creation of new content, was left out, but I just put that in there. Sharktopus ^talk 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Realistically, I was thinking it'd be a couple of months before anything really happened to the mainpage. That is one RfC that really needs to run its course, have results analysed and figure out where to go from there, which I suspect would be more proposals. I figured this would be a trial to try in the meantime. My initial idea (when arguing with Tony) was that cycling 4 queues a day containing average 5.5 DYK and 1 GA meant 22 DYK and 4 GA cycling through vs 3 x 6.5 DYK which leaves us 19.5 DYK hooks going through. This is based on an off-the-cuff calculation of between 6 and 7 hooks per set. I thought this'd be a net gain for everybody.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I should bloody well hope the Wikimedia Foundation has more sense than to let its front page be redesigned by a random walk through !voters with COI. Of course the FA people think we should have more featured content, and of course getting rid of DYK, ITN, and OTD would create more room for featured content. Of course I like DYK because I like creating new content and I often notice that Wikipedia needs something it doesn't have. If you offered me twice as many "ribbons" for critiquing other people's metric conversions, I'd drown in boredom. That's my COI. Of course new articles do not have the same smooth proof-read-ness of articles that have been vetted for months, but I follow Main Page/Errors, and we rarely have more errors picked up in 3 or 4 runs of 7 hooks each per day than FA has in their one blurb per day. People don't come to Wikipedia because they want to read polished prose about arbitrary topics, they come here because they are curious and lively and hope to learn something. Sharktopus ^talk 21:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the voting in and of itself there is going to dictate the changes. There has been talk on wikimedia pages before so some foundation input might take place as well. Hence why I think it'll be a few months yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The other "!voters with COI" have no more conflict of interest that you do, with your support for putting DYK above FA. The community needs comments from everyone, because the whole page belongs to all of us, not just to DYKers—or FA folks, or ITN stringers, or any other group you care to name. You should feel free to share whatever opinions you have about the Main Page, even if it's not about "your" area.

This is the first unified discussion, and it is basically a brainstorming session. The majority of ideas will be rejected. Those (if any) that seem to have some significant support will be discussed separately, and probably for months on end, before any actual decisions are made. I would realistically not expect to see any changes as a result of this discussion until 2012. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:EncycloPetey

I would like to complain how User:EncycloPetey reviewed the article First Lady of the World. I have withdrawn it because he distrusts a Wikipedian like me. Wikipedia belongs to everyone. What he did is against the Wikipedia way of openness and collaboration. He must be removed as an administrator because of this. - AnakngAraw (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He won't be. The diff is here. The nom dates back to July 4, so it's a pity the issues weren't addressed earlier. Including the name of the main character in a plagiarism comparison is a bit, er, harsh, but otherwise his removal seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it a striking feature of the plot or public perception of the novel, that the main character worships Hindu gods at an altar in the United Nations building? If so, how else would one word a quick summary of that fact? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AnakngAraw, having articles featured on DYK is a privilege, not a right, and the project doesn't need people calling for desysopping/banning every DYK editor who doesn't agree with them. If you can't work with DYK reviewers civilly, then maybe your privilege of nominating DYK articles should be removed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a "privilege of nominating DYK articles" that could be removed, other than by a block etc. Where does this strange idea come from? Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

People can be topic-banned from any project. Likewise, DYK reviewers can simply refuse to review anything edited by that editor. If someone is going to make threats against every DYK editor who criticizes their nomination, that person clearly is not ready to be a constructive member of the project, and the people who volunteer their time to run DYK shouldn't have to worry about getting this kind of crap for their reviews. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't amount to what you said. Frankly here your language here is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic banning is removing an editing privilege. How is that different? AnakngAraw's complaint above was the only inappropriate thing in this thread and I will not apologize for calling it inappropriate. Do you have something to contribute to this discussion (which seems to be stale anyway, as the OP hasn't commented in days), or are you just looking for a fight? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (until blocked or banned). Talking about "privileges" is bullshit and fundamentally wrong, re DYK or any other normal editing function. I've made my point. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So you don't disagree with the point I was making in any way, you just felt like going off on a tangent to complain about my word choice. I'm glad that is cleared up. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(And by the way, longstanding consensus is that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC))

Do quotes count as main prose for fivefold expansion?

Hi all. I've been working on expanding Star of Love (Crystal Fighters album). It's gone from 10,177 bytes to 29,730 bytes in total... My question is: given that the article constituted of a full third of quotes beforehand, is that counted when ascertaining the prose length to determine fivefold expansion? Also, is there an easy way to see the prose-only byte count? Thanks =) Nikthestoned 18:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bytes are not what you count, see the rules, but re quotes this is a good borderline example. I would say that quotes that ought to have been taken out of running prose per MOS principles should be excluded from before & after counts, but that leaves a fair amount of room for personal taste. I noticed recently that the rules re expansions do not specifically mention quotes. Full declaration: when I did the nom for Tipu's Tiger (July 18) my "before" count excluded a huge 868 char quote that was then in running prose but in the "after" version was separated as a quote, as it clearly should be. I think this was right - at that point it made a difference to the 5x but now it doesn't as the article has grown. It would be silly to include it before and exclude it after. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Expansion is counted based on the size of the previous article, no matter what shape it was in; this is stated clearly in the rules. A character of prose in the pre-existing version is counted as a character of prose, even if it happens to be in quotes. So your article is not 5x expanded.

If an article was already 10,000+ characters before you started expanding it, you should consider WP:GAN rather than WP:DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No bytes dude. The previous version contained little prose, but lists, refs, templates etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As for your second question, you can calculate prose size using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js, or WP:DYKCHECK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Previous version is 2854 characters, current version is 7568. Less than 3x expansion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct - though given that block-quotes are discounted by the script and the former has 2 massive inline quotes, the original should only be 1982 chars and as such the goal is far more attainable! Either way, thanks for all your help =) Nikthestoned 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Daily DYK scandal

There's always one, whether faulty sources, plagiarism, or sensationalism, but y'all have exceeded even your own low standards with:

reporting one negative fact based on one source which places the subject of a BLP in a negative light. Have you all no shame, or simply no processes for assuring you don't trash the main page? All one has to do is take a daily glance at DYK to realize it's gotten worse and worse. By the way, who verified the hook this time, because the source says he "may" be able to, not that he did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference: this hook was moved to the prep area here. Ucucha 02:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha: am I reading that correctly? It appears to me that TK verified the *first* hook, and yet DYK *ran* the second (alternate) hook.[2] If correct, amazing. How did that happen? Get it off the main page, folks-- it's a debacle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done by Dom. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Dominic got to it before me (or MZM, apparently!). Nice catch Sandy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(But you both got here in time to edit conflict me!) Yes, I removed it. I intended to replace it with the other hook, but it seems that it wasn't chosen because there was an issue with self-published sources being used. I'd rather leave it for more experienced DYKers to decide what to replace the spot with, whether it's another one from that article or something new. Dominic·t 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all, but can y'all go back and figure out how that happened? Am I correct that the first hook was the one verified by TK, yet for some reason the second hook was chosen even though it wasn't checked? Y'all have got to find a way to plug these holes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, TK didn't specify which hook he verified; so in effect, he verified both. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember there was a hook about a water board. How can you see from this diff that there were two hooks there? Once these are processed they're gone. At any rate, if there was an alt hook, which looking back at the page, I see there was, I wouldn't have expected it to run unless I suggested it, which I didn't. In my mind alt = something wrong with first, and I never commented on the hook, I was focusing on the content. But at any rate, am prepared to admit I screwed up here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From reading the discussion, it does not appear that TK was looking at the alt hook, and no where in this mess of a process can I understand WHY Crisco chose to run the second hook. Another user (OCNative) ce'd it in the prep area 1, and then Materialscientist moved it to queue. None of those people saw the problem? There is a systemic breakdown here. You've got one person proposing a hook, another reviewing, another moving to prep (Crisco somebody), another copyediting the hook (OCNative), another moving to queue (Materialscientist), and no one saw the problem, or noticed that apparently TK verified the first hook, not the alt? How is Crisco empowered to choose the alt, based on that discussion? Are you all simply pushing through too much volume to pick up things like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, TK's first review of the DYK submission was here, at which point there were already two hooks there; he put his comments (which discussed various aspects of the article, not just hooks) underneath the second hook. There was nothing to suggest he wasn't looking at the second hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. TK did not specify which he checked, or which he agreed with, so I chose the hookiest hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• DYK can be as obtuse as you all want for as long as you want, but it doesn't take any amount of effort to read the discussion there and realize that TK (a new reviewer) did not verify the alt hook. But, at least Crisco has now told us why he chose the alt hook in spite of that-- he prefers the sensationalist hooks, which is another big problem driving the DYK daily scandal. One editor can put a debacle on the main page, that three other editors up the DYK line don't catch. No accountability, no transparency, no archives, no institutional memory, no decency wrt human beings. And you're still putting BLP vios from the same editor who wrote this one on the main page. Tsk, tsk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I said hooky / sensational, not sensationalist. Please do not twist my words around. Naturally, if one hook reads "... that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?" and the other reads "... that President of the United States Barack Obama has won two Emmys?", the Emmy hook is hookier. As for the reviewing process, please feel free to join in the reviewing process. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, for an example of a somewhat negative hook, "... that President of the United States Barack Obama smoked marijuana as a teenager?" Still hookier than "was born in Hawaii" Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps there was an error in the review here, which is certainly worth checking, but I believe the DYK hook used is well-verified and the subject of many news reports in Texas. Its not even that shocking really. Too many DYK hooks are totally boring bollocks, at least this allows readers to check into the controversy and understand it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - in fact, the first hook here was indeed extremely dull (and yes, maybe even close to "boring bollocks"), which may be what encouraged choice of the second hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have one, just once in a while, just one discussion about the obvious problems at DYK that focuses on solutions? A BIG part of the DYK problem is the desire for sensationalism which leads to junk like his being run on the mainpage. Choosing one negative sensational fact from a BLP, based (in the article) on one source isn't the way we should be doing things. Again, are you all trying to push through too much volume, with too many hands in the pot, no accountability, no archives, no means of checking, that things like this can too easily get through? Boring is better than the sensationalist crap that often makes it into DYK-- and that article for darn sure did not allow any readers to check into the controversy and understand it-- the entire controversy is reported from *one* source in the article. Please stop the drive for sensationalist hooks, and institute a process where there is some accountability for what goes on the main page, instead of too many cooks in the broth, no archives, complex processes, and no one in charge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is almost never a good reason to put even true and cited negative facts about living people on the main page of Wikipedia, and certainly not recent controversies for local politicians still in office. Putting a negative claim about a living person on the main page, which gets millions of hits, without the context of the rest of the article gives an incredible amount of undue weight to that aspect of the biography. Dominic·t 03:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The DYK rule is that hooks must not focus "unduly" on negative statements about a living person: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Let's get a grip on what actually happened here. Somebody approved a hook the described an amendment Christian verifiably supported, one that was verifiably limited to beach property in the exact area of his own beach property. There is nothing in BLP that says you can't mention a verifiable fact about somebody that others might perceive in a negative way. The bar is set higher for a DYK hook because it is short, and you can't typically balance something negative once it is mentioned. This was a mild infraction at DYK of one of DYK's own rules. It was not a "scandal." Sharktopus ^talk 03:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, to answer just one of your questions, yes I think you all are trying to push through too much volume. There's a proposal above, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Good articles redux that would reduce that volume by a small amount - what should in my opinion be an uncontroversial amount. But it doesn't seem to get much support. Some more thoughtful input there would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem is the number of submissions we get, fiddling with the means of dealing with them will not alter the workload, because someone still has to vet every submission and make decisions about it. Tightening the criteria for DYK would be the only way to reduce submissions, but no-one seems to want to do that and there is no guarantee it would change anything, since many of the people who do most of the work now would probably just see it as a means of reducing their own workload.

In any case, this is not such a big deal, DYK only has occasional slip-ups but they occur in every part of the project, and there seems to be some disagreement over whether this hook should have been pulled anyway. Debate is healthy, but let's not blow things out of proportion. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a big deal, and should be taken more seriously as it's a BLP. Yes people make mistakes, but then again, people should learn from them and not make them again and again. AD 11:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What Aiken drum just said. This is not a minor glitch that should be swept under the carpet. A negative fact about a living person was put onto the most viewed page on the fourth largest website on the internet. There was no need for that and it should be taken seriously. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that there's a steady turnover of people so that mistakes are made by those less experienced. And while I agree that the hook probably breached our rules, it was on the main page for less than three hours. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)::

So let's look at solutions that deal with these mistakes so they don't hit the main page? Don't just accept it as a problem. I see this as a very good reason to reduce the number hooks on the front page, so only the best get on (something I wasn't really for before). NB In 3 hours, the page is seen by ~600k people. Don't underestimate that power. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I just said, reducing the number of hooks will not reduce the number of submissions, so it won't reduce anyone's workload and won't make the end result more reliable. This kind of thing happens once in a blue moon, occasional mistakes are always going to occur, they occur even with FA from time to time, and they are not a reason for proposing radical changes. Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, TCO mentioned to me that he was after some data on DYK, I'll do my best to get that together before commenting further. I've done a fair amount of DYK work myself, I'd almost consider myself a reg and I've seen enough that I think that some sort of change is needed. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Catching up on multiple: Dominic has it just right, and anyone who doesn't get that shouldn't be working on anything that goes on the mainpage. Gatoclass has a very valid point about the high turnover of people working here-- there's a new crowd of people in here about every three months, so the old mistakes keep repeating, even though MANY of us have been harping on the same things for years now. Perhaps good and experienced editors eventually leave this area because the turnover is too high, the workload is too high, the process is too complex, or they become embarrassed when they realize the poorly sourced sensationalism and plagiarism they often put on the mainpage? It is NOT an occassional mistake-- any time one chances to look at DYK (as I did yesterday), one can find something egregious-- whether plagiarism, copyvio, non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, and now gross BLP situations. You all need to figure out how to fix this-- editors are NOT entitled to have time on the mainpage, and the volume of turnover needs to be reduced. You also need, IMO, a directorate made up of experienced editors-- a place where the buck stops and someone is responsible when this happens. I think it's pisspoor to blame this on TK, even if she accepts responsibility, when it's quite clear from the discussion that she vetted the first hook, yet the second ran. Will someone PLEASE tell us what possessed that Crisco person to run the alternate hook? What is your process? Who is in charge? Nothing has changed even though many of us have been harping on this for years, and Gatoclass points out why (there's a new crowd in here every three months claiming there's no problem when the problems go back years, the Shark character is the latest DYK apologist in a long stream of same)-- you all know best how to fix it-- others from outside can't pretend to tell you how, but you do need to fix it. You need lower turnaround and accountability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may, Sandy, I would suggest it's not helpful to use this as another stick with which to beat DYK over the head or to blame a specific editor. Everybody here has acted in good faith, but mistakes have been made—I think we all agree on that much. So instead of insulting DYK (regardless of whether it deserves to be insulted or not), why don't we have a collegial discussion about how (or even whether) DYK can be improved. Without that discussion, we'll all waste a lot of space discussing these issues every time they come up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that's what we were trying to do, and who is trying to blame any specific editor? Or better stated, who is trying to brush this under the rug? This cannot be blamed on TK-- it took multiple (systemic) process failures to cause this. Until some regular denialists here start looking at the process problems, and considering for how long this has been happening, it may be time to take up a stick rather than drop it. As soon as the regulars here start discussing much needed change, rather than resisting it, I'll be glad to unwatch for the gazillionth time after finding egregious DYK issues on the main page. And until DYK begins to seriously discuss how to change the problems, rather than deny them and claim they are occassional, it may be time to start assigning blame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Have started reading this whole discussion, starting from this section and working down to the recent RfC at the bottom, and I'm trying to concentrate on the issues at play here, but the tone of the discourse is varying wildly from person to person, so it is difficult to avoid getting distracted by comments like "that Crisco person" and "the Shark character". Can we use people's usernames rather than dismissive terms, as failing to follow the basic courtesy of using someone's username properly only distracts from the systemic issues you are trying to get people to see? I agree there are systemic issues, but it seems to me to be people having different standards and not agreeing on what is a reliable source, or having the time to explain to users how to write properly from sources and what needs rewriting or not. Just pointing something out is sometimes not enough. Sometimes you have to demonstrate by editing the article what should be done instead. Carcharoth (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Break

• One feature that all Main Page programs rely on is Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors, where people swiftly report problems to get swift correction. I encourage everyone to look at the history of that page to search for past "scandals", let alone daily scandals, at DYK. Errors occur in all the Main Page features. This page is commonly used to suggest changes in DYK process, many of which have been or are being implemented. This particular article was reviewed by a novice reviewer. I had proposed a while ago that some more experienced reviewers make a practice of reviewing Prep instead of reviewing individual articles; I would be happy to see that proposal reconsidered. Another recent proposal to help novice reviewers resulted in cmadler's very kindly posting a reviewer's guide to help new reviewers. I just added a more prominent link to that guide and a strong suggestion to new reviewers that they read it before proceeding. The rule about "unduly negative" BLP hooks is in there. It is regrettable that mistake was missed by the more experienced people who made up Prep and Queue, but I am betting they don't make that mistake again. Sharktopus ^talk 12:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd advise you not to put money on that-- every mistake made at DYK recurs quite regularly, and has for years, because there's a new crowd of editors in here every few months. ERRORS should be for errors-- not systemic, long-standing, well-documented, ongoing process failures. Please stop glossing this over and pushing it under the rug. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for this, and take full blame. Whoever said I was a novice reviewer is partially correct; I don't review often at DYK. This particular situation arose from this discussion where Demiurge1000 challenged me to review a DYK. Honestly I was only looking at the content and made two very serious mistakes. One is that I assumed the article creator would scrub all the problems after a spotcheck, and two I assumed the first hook would be used, as it seemed fine and no reason to go to the alt hook, about which I didn't comment. We all know what happens when a person assumes, and for that I'm completely culpable. Not much more to say, otherwise. Oh, except to thank Sandy for being on the ball, to thank whomever pulled the submission from the frontpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not completely culpable-- it is QUITE clear from the discussion that you reviewed the first hook, yet for some reason, that Crisco editor chose the second hook. The problem here is too many queue turnovers and no one in charge-- after you reviewed the first hook, three different experienced DYK editors worked to put the alternate hook on the mainpage-- it took multiple cooks in the broth to cause this to happen, and therein lies the problem-- no accountability even as an obviously bad hook moves up the chain. Further, that this could have happened with an experienced editor (TK, who did NOT review the alternate hook, yet it ran anyway) only highlights the problem-- that is, DYK requires nominators to review regardless of their editing experience, so you get inexperienced reviewers, who are even MORE likely to make a mistake than an experienced editor like TK. Bad, bad process here. I hope you all will decide how to fix it, and stop relying on faulty RFCs-- you need to DO something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

After so many edit conflicts (and a cuppa tea :D) - TK, you're a link in a chain. The nominator[3][4], the reviewer[5], the "prepper"[6] and the admin who moved it[7] to the queue all failed. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Well I'm afraid it's not working—at least for DYK it's not. And as far as I'm concerned, Sandy is right: daily is no exaggeration. Do we need to start a public DYK bloopers page to convince people that the current system makes the safe, secure, functional reviewing of DYKs virtually impossible? Apart from the dangers to the main page, there can be no proper role of mentoring less experienced editors and inducting them into the process of improving articles from scratch. It's painfully obvious that the system needs to be reformed in several ways to ensure that DYK fulfills its own objectives and those of the whole project. The number of hooks per day needs to be reduced, and the system of nominator reviews needs to be a little more demanding than tick tick tick, count the characters. The time has come to drop the inflexible coloured ticks and crosses that assume lightening quick reviewing, and to create a proper checklist of the urgents that need to be OKed before exposure. Tony (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're not GAN, and there's never been a requirement that DYK articles have to be perfect or anywhere near it. The basic idea of DYK is that it's a process that is accessible both to new users and to prospective users who might read one of our new articles and think "I could do that!" DYK articles are not supposed to be perfect.

As Sharktopus pointed out, there is a page here specifically designed to catch and rectify mainpage errors, which occur routinely in EVERY mainpage project. Why DYK gets singled out for this negative attention I don't know, but I suspect it's because some users just don't like the format and philosophy behind it. We've had many attempts to change the working of DYK in the past and they have all failed, most people like it the way it is. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is asking for perfect, but we don't need apologists for plagiarism, sensationalism, and BLP issues. It is NOT acceptable to put this level of debacle on the mainpage. As an experienced DYK editor, I hold you and other experienced DYKers responsible for fixing them, not denying it or apologizing for it. Your process stinks; fix it. DYK deserves this negative attention-- it is NOT an error, it is a sytemic process failure that has been going on for years. You're on old-timer here-- work on it, or take your lumps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who contributed to DYK in the past - but only extremely rarely now - it seems to me that the problems have worsened significantly since the decision was made to require self-nominators to also be reviewers. What that meant is that some nominators found an easy hook to skim-review, with little concern for the article's accuracy or for finding the best or most appropriate hook. So long as they could tick the "reviewed another article" box, their own hook was likely to be promoted. But there has never been any reason to assume that new article contributors would have any expertise or interest at all in reviewing other people's articles or hooks. The system worked better when reviews were in the hands of experienced and dedicated (albeit, I'm sure, overworked) reviewers who took the responsibility seriously. But, of course, it's also true that far, far too many articles are promoted through DYK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I've been largely inactive at DYK for quite some time. The main reason is that I got tired of the almost total lack of support for combating POV pushing in the I-P topic area. Many users either don't see the problems (presumably due to systemic bias), or else run a mile when they see a dispute in contentious areas come up - some admins won't touch politically sensitive submissions as a matter of policy. I guess at some point I came to the conclusion that it just wasn't worth the hassle.

So I can't pretend to have my finger on the pulse of the project as it currently exists - possibly standards have slipped somewhat due to the implementation of QPQ, as admins have come to rely on it too much instead of verifying hooks themselves. DYK is a constant grind and it's usually left up to just a handful of admins to run it. Sometimes I think WP should have some sort of roster system where admins were encouraged to take part in one part of the project or another for a set period - there are lots of areas that are short of manpower. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But if those are, in fact, the identifiable issues (quid pro quo and too much volume), why can't both of them be solved? Eliminate the QPQ reviewing, get a directorate, and reduce the turnover volume to one queue per day. I don't mean to propose solutions-- you all should know best-- but who is the "you all" at DYK, if knowledgeable editors move along and denialists and apologists move in? Who will fix this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not being an old hand at DYK, I dont understand this statement "Eliminate the QPQ reviewing, get a directorate". Could you please elucidate, SandyGeorgia? AshLin (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I too was a bit lost in the shorthand introduced in Gatoclass's post, but I assume that when he used QPQ he meant Quid Pro Quo reviewing. DYK instituted in the last year a process that requires nominators to review another editors' hook (QPQ)-- I believe that to be a big step in the wrong direction, and it is something we have studiously avoided at FAC, for a number of reasons that I would think are obvious, but I will elaborate if necessary. By directorate, I mean that FAC, FLC and others have directors and delegates in charge, so that some real person is responsible if repeat issues aren't corrected. We had one bad, and well publicized instance, of copyvio at FAC, and we took responsibility and got on it and corrected the problem. By directorate here, I mean a core group of experienced knowlegdeable editors who are where the buck stops before a DYK is put on the main page-- in this case, it took at least five editors to contribute to the mistake, but there is no one "in charge", no one "responsible", no bottom line of accountability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, reducing the number of hooks which appear on the main page does nothing to reduce the workload, because the number of submissions remains the same. We could increase the DYK requirements but such proposals have always been shot down in the past.

I guess one thing that could be done is to have greater accountability at the update level, where admins have to actually sign off on some sort of boilerplate statement saying they have checked all the hooks thoroughly for compliance with DYK rules before loading them. ATM admins have the option of signing off on the update, but they are not obliged to vouch for its quality. Just a simple change like that might go a long way toward improving the output. It would discourage admins from treating the update process as nothing more than a series of mechanical actions. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, whatever you all decide to do, another thing to consider is the kind of thing we had to do at FAC to address the backlog from repeat offenders: if a FAC is archived, the nominator can't bring another for two weeks. If you make some kind of change, perhaps whenever you find a problem, that person then either can't review or can't submit for several weeks-- that may help slow down the high level of submissions, and encourage folks to get it right the first time. Just an idea, that may or may not be applicable here as it is at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that could also work at T:TDYK level too - if users verify hooks that turn out to be problematic, they could be banned from submitting any more DYKs for a set period of time. That would be one way to increase the quality of reviews, especially QPQ reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But take care not to phrase it as "banning" or "sanctions", as that can be off-putting. Allow them to save face-- frame it as a means to reduce the backlog and assure adequate review and give nominators and reviewers time to address previous mistakes, rather than as some kind of penalty, ban or sanction. Honestly, we had to put a FAC rule change in place to deal with one nominator's abuses, but it isn't helpful to call attention to individuals and their mistakes-- it's more helpful to simply put processes in place that improve quality and encourage better submissions without blame. If nominators know that an archival means that can't come back for two weeks, they will hopefully bring increasingly better prepared articles to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What's an "archival"? I'm inclined to agree that wording is important - I was shocked at the amount of resistance just to QPQ, which was seen as an unreasonable imposition by some contributors. We wouldn't have to be confrontational about it, but the point would need to be made clear. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A FAC is either "promoted" or "archived" (we used to call it failed, but that's hard on nominator ego :) The problem we had was that some nominators were serial offenders, bringing repeatedly ill-prepared articles to FAC that sapped a lot of reviewer time. As soon as one was archived they put up another, equally deficient FAC that just took reviewer time and increased the backlog. So, we added the two-week wait after archival. See my suggestion in the section below for implementing something similar at DYK. FAC has also seriously rejected-- and will always reject AFAIK-- QPQ reviewing. Nominators are not necessarily good or experienced reviewers, and personal motivations may become an issue. I think doing that at DYK has directly resulted in lower quality: only experienced editors should be vetting mainpage content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. FYI, QPQ is not a requirement for every nominator - only those who have at least 5 DYKs to their credit already. The assumption is that anyone who has accumulated five DYKs knows enough about the process to review other noms - but whether they are all bothering to do so adequately is obviously another question. I'm thinking that auto-rejection of their next nomination would be an effective method of improving reviewers' concentration, although I have little doubt after the QPQ experience that there would be howls of outrage from some quarters over such a proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Glossary for those who are confused by the TLAs (my interpretation) -

• QPQ Reviewing = Quid pro quo reviewing, as part of your nomination you are required to review another nomination, certain editors believe this causes sloppy reviewing. <-- Current situation
• Directorate = A group of editors "in charge" of reviewing, who have the experience to do so and the accountability if something gets through. Certain editors believe this will cause a backlog.

Hope that helps AshLin ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry for the repeat above :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks SandyGeorgia and Worm That Turned for the explanations! Whenever I have reviewed a DYK I was conscious to try to follow the rules & additional rules to letter and spirit. I was not aware there was a QPQ involved - I thought that unless the other person reviewed my DYK in return for my reviewing his, no QPQ was involved. AshLin (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Correct-- I would not have labeled it QPQ, but QPQ is a potential side effect of requiring nominators to review, which is one of many reasons we have always rejected that proposal at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing as my choice of the ALT for this DYK is causing more problems than a volcano in downtown Los Angeles, I will try and explain why I chose the ALT. As DYK regulars have probably noted, I prefer the more sensational (a.k.a. hooky) hooks. In this case, the original hook was something that could apply to any old politician. Meanwhile, the ALT was something quite unique (and which I honestly did not see as too negative). As TK did not state which hook he preferred, I went with my gut. Preppers are not required to double check the referencing of hooks, so I assumed it was okay. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Instructions/rules additions needed

One part of the problem here, is that the reviewer approved the nomination apparently without checking (or even looking at) the alternative hook. Their assumption was that the alternative hook wouldn't be used unless there was some sort of problem followed by a further review, and that therefore they only needed to look at the first hook. This might seem obviously wrong to someone experienced with DYK, but not to a novice reviewer. More to the point, alternative hooks, despite being a well established and widely used practice, aren't mentioned at all (that I can find) in Wikipedia:Did you know or in Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules. They are mentioned in Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage under "Proofreading Template talk:Did you know" ("you need to check ALT's, some of which occur in the middle of a paragraph full of comments. Just because an ALT isn't formalized as an ALT, doesn't mean someone can't copy it to a preparation area") and under "Glossary" ("Often an ALT is selected instead of the original version"). Really, there should be some mention of this in the other DYK instruction pages; it might have prevented the problem in this instance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right. I looked at the plagiarism, and as it happens didn't even catch all the plagiarism on the page. I also looked at the hook which seemed appropriate and no need for an alt hook, so let it be at that. I've apologized. There's nothing wrong with the instructions; you challenged me to review a page, I did, and screwed up. Happy? All this after your quite frankly disparaging comments that continue above. I did look at the hook - am not that stupid. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think more instruction creep is the solution-- this process is already so obtuse and hard-to-follow, that it's unlikely that adding to it will address the recurring issues. A complete revamp of the process is needed-- this whole business of nominate, prep, queue, move to mainpage, no archives just makes for no accountability or transparency, and this is something we've been discussing for at least a year. Someone needs to take the bull by the horns and revamp the technicalities of how DYK works-- it's impossible for an outsider to follow. And my opinion is that that task would be much eaiser if you reduced it to one queue per day. Everyone who writes a DYK is NOT entitled to mainpage exposure if we don't have enough peoplepower to assure mainpage quality-- tighten the requirements, reduce the submissions, go for one change a day, get a directorate, and if you can avoid these kinds of issues under an improved system, then move back to four queues a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it astounding that no one seemed to notice this problem. I suggest a simple new rule: Each did you know needs two "good/assume good faith" reviews. Thoughts? Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 15:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That would just destroy the whole point of QPQ, which was to reduce the reviewing burden on the regulars.

IMO, if a double-check system was to be implemented, it would make more sense, as Sharktopus suggested above, to implement it at the Prep level rather than at T:TDYK. But I've already suggested a less onerous alternative to this, which I think should be tried first. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuing

Um, POV on the mainpage is also something we should watch for. The same editor who put up the nasty BLP that led to this has another DYK today, which raises eyebrows at least. Hollis Downs. Looks like a pattern of editing with an agenda to me: YMMV. And can someone tell me why we use a primary source to discuss his $250 contribution to the Republican party? Have reliable sources mentioned it? Houston, don't look now, but you've got big problems. Also, I can't locate any info about the reliability of the source for the hook; perhaps I'm missing it, but I've reviewed their entire "About" page and don't find anything qualifying them as a reliable source. Who reviewed this time? Does DYK really want to continue in the business of allowing such clearly biased content to be put on the mainpage, because someone claims to have checked one sentence? We have another purely negative, unbalanced article on a politician on the mainpage-- now a pattern. Please someone consider whether it should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any great problem with that hook or article. There is nothing wrong with primary sources, AFAIK there is nothing sinister about the Republican National Committee, and I don't see how supporting an "anti-bullying bill" represents an attack on a politician. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting-- the problem is more systemic than I thought. Well, it must be a good time to go the ballgame and unwatch DYK, which is rather clearly beyond help. See y'all next time round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's a total copout, apart from being a slight on my own capabilities. Please explain the nature of your objections so that I at least have the opportunity to defend myself. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Dominic will come along, and perhaps some CUs will come along. I'm afraid it looks like DYK is part of a much larger systemic problem than even I thought. Honestly, clean up your act. If you don't know the problem with using primary sources and non-reliable sources in political bios, I can't help you. What's going on here is alarming in how long it's been happening, but plainly disgusting in the levels to which it has reached. I'd much rather go to the ballgame now, bye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I concede that I've missed the public figure/primary source issue up to now, it's the kind of nuance that as a regular FAC contributor you would be well aware of but you shouldn't assume everyone has the same level of familiarity that you and your fellow FAC contributors have accumulated. As for unreliable sources, of course we don't accept them. Had I reviewed this article myself, I would certainly have raised questions about it, however, many articles get promoted that I myself would not promote, and one cannot get too far out of step with one's colleagues. It seems you are trying to bring FAC standards to a process that is radically different - we simply can't give articles that kind of scrutiny. I can't possibly go through every source in every article in every update to ensure that every fact is verified - one has to rely on the wider process to some extent. Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And BTW, referring to the contributions of other good faith editors as "plainly disgusting" is uncivil in the extreme - I must say I am deeply disappointed with your attitude and your comments in this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Without disparaging the legitimate concerns that Sandy's raising--I agree that this hook's the Wayne Christian hook's appearance on the main page was a problem and we should discuss how to better prevent its recurrence--the have you no sense of decency tone strikes me, too, as both off-putting and likely to generate more heat than light. -- Khazar (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion created by my comment above; I lost track of where I was posting. It's the Christian hook that seems objectionable to me, not the Downs. -- Khazar (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the particular article in question in this thread, I'm having trouble following Sandy's description of it as "purely negative", "clearly biased", "plainly disgusting", etc. The language describing Downs' history and legislation seems to me neutral and (for the latter) to give due weight to both sides of arguments, and while I agree that the mention of the donation to the RNC was silly and rightly deleted as irrelevant, I have trouble seeing how it was an attack. The guy's a Republican state representative; why would anyone be surprised by this? If anything, I think this article makes Downs sounds rather good. I see no reason to remove it from the main page. -- Khazar (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Do you mean the creator or the prepper? If you mean the prepper, I will let you know that I have no opinion on US politics, especially on the state level. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The author of this article has something like 800 DYKs to his credit, and though his contributions have been serially problematic in one way or another, I've never heard anyone accuse him of "having an agenda" against Republicans - AFAIK his political bios are almost exclusively on Republicans, and I've always made the assumption the writer is a Republican himself. So I think Sandy is just plain wrong on that score. I agree that the bio is a little rough, but so are lots of DYKs, perfection is not the goal here, these are Wikipedia's newest articles and it's expected that there will be room for improvement. Judging by Sandy's dummy spit in this thread, what our most trenchant critics are expecting to see at DYK is FAC- or at least GA-level rigour, if that's what they want then we should just hand DYK over to the GA process and scrap this process altogether, because we don't remotely have the resources for that level of reviewing and never will. Gatoclass (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, that's alarmingly like what Rlevse said to me when I first questioned his approving of nominations where almost all of the article was basically copy and pasted from a single scouting website of unknown provenance. "These articles can be tricky to source", and "this isn't GA you know" ... and onto the main page they went. No-one else saw a problem with it, and I was too new to put up a fight. Are we sleep-walking to a new disaster? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I wouldn't for a moment endorse putting plagiarism or copyvio on the mainpage, and in the past I've argued for the strongest possible sanctions for those who submit such articles, proposing that any such articles be automatically disqualified and that repeat offenders be banned. As usual, I got little support for my views. As for Rlevse, I had ongoing serious misgivings with the quality of his reviews, but made few comments since (a) he was at the time a sitting arbitrator who ought to have known what he was doing, and (b) he was a prolific contributor whom I didn't want to alienate. In retrospect, it's clear we all should have been more vigilant, but let's not forget that Rlevse's plagiarism also got a free pass for an extended period at FAC, where there really is no excuse. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite making a mistake on the hook, I didn't make a mistake on the close paraphrasing issues with Wayne Christian. The Downs page has the same problems, fwiw. I'd think this would be case where an editor should have a greater level of scrutiny, or something. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I crazy or did we not have a discussion awhile back about the author of this article (Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs)) and plagiarizing? Or was it sourcing? Either way, this is a really really bad thing to find in someone who has written so many pages. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Billy has an ongoing problem with the use of substandard sources for his articles, it's not that all the sources he employs are substandard but he doesn't exercise much discrimination. He also used to have a problem with writing articles on people who failed WP:NOTE, although he has improved in that regard.

I'm not aware of any plagiarism issues in his articles, if this is a recent concern I've missed it. He appears to have good language skills and is able to put things into his own words and usually does in my experience. If he's starting to take shortcuts, obviously that's something that will need to be addressed but I'd have to see some evidence of that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this would have been awhile ago. It was probably over sourcing. Anyway, TK above says that she found close paraphrasing in two of his articles – that's what I was going off of. Could you (TK) provide some examples? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Next scandal of the day, keep 'em coming

The sourcing problems, BLP problems, and plagiarism are easily found, including in today's DYK[8]-- that no one here is aware of them in someone with this many DYKs is not surprising, considering the history of serial plagiarizers who have gotten away with it for years at DYK with no regulars here detecting the problems. But, again, plagiarism and copyvio are not the only problems DYK is showcasing on the mainpage-- poor sourcing is an equal concern.

Have some easily found examples (we can go on for pages and pages, but perhaps one of the good folk here will get off their duffs and open the copyright investiation on the work enabled by this process):

Gordon Dove (Louisiana politician) nominated for DYK on July 12.

Article:

• Young Dove's vehicle careened across the highway, crashed into the right guardrail, and overturned several times. His seat belt was not fastened. Partially thrown out the back window and pinned beneath the SUV, he died at the scene.

Source:

• The SUV careened back across the highway, crashed into the right guardrail and flipped several times. Dove, who police said was not wearing a seat belt, was partially thrown out the back window and pinned beneath the vehicle. He died at the scene.

Article:

• Dove is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and works to raise awareness of the importance of coastal passes and barrier islands. He supports the north-south corridor for hurricane evacuation and the funding of the hurricane protection system from Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico. Dove also supports the state charity hospital system by removing the Medicare and Medicaid caps placed on the hospitals

Source:

• As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Dove will be a coastal floor leader for some years to come. In particular, he is interested in raising awareness of the importance of coastal passes and barrier islands. ... On health care, he supports funding the state’s charity hospital system by lifting existing Medicare and Medicaid caps placed on the hospitals. On coastal protections, the planned north-south corridor for hurricane evacuation and the funding of the Morganza-to-the-Gulf hurricane protection system are top objectives.

Deny away. DYK has got more than one prolific editor who doesn't know reliable sourcing, doesn't know BLP, and doesn't know how to paraphrase content in their own words, and you have no mechanism for preventing this systemic issue from being displayed on the mainpage. Why, again, is it that we MUST display new content, rather than vetted content, on the mainpage? And why is it that DYK has no directorate, no one responsible for these messes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this as a scandal but a controvery in which Mr. Christian prevailed. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I did do some rewording to minimise some of this - looks like some more would be prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a way to equate "careen" with something else, nor "north-south corridor", "raise awareness of the importance" should be doable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Next

• Chuck Kleckley. After removing all the text in a BLP not cited to reliable sources, does it still meet the size needed for DYK? How can you all be passing DYKs on size needed without checking that sources are reliable, and why are you putting BLPs on the mainpage with non-RS? More importantly, why are you still passing DYKs from this particular writer, given the number of issues already identified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nexxxxxt

• The Paul Winchell Show; I'll let some other genius spot the close paraphrasing, plagiarism, or whatever you want to call it, but the article is built almost entirely from non-reliable sources, so how does it meet the expansion criteria? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, your hyperbole on this page is becoming increasingly irritating. More than once now you have described articles with minor flaws as "egregiously bad". The supposed "BLP violations" you are finding are at best technical, and at times questionable (what is wrong with votesmart.org?). There's a difference between constructive criticism and mudslinging, the latter only causes resentment so please try to exercise some restraint. We are already discussing ways to improve the process so this ongoing documentation of alleged errors is just becoming a distraction. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Gato. What's next? Something like this?

  "The End of Wikipedia is Upon Us! Erwin Gutawa has a Typo! DYK can be Blamed for all of Our Problems on Wikipedia! Get that Misspelled Stuff Off the Main Page!"

You have raised valid points, which has ignited a longer discussion than most threads in the history of DYK. I think that participating in said discussion, rather than adding trivial or questionable mistakes to the "list" here, would be a better way to improve Wikipedia. As Gatoclass said, there is a difference between constructive criticism and mudslinging. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole might apply if you all weren't continuing to put serial plagiarism, BLP vios and faulty sourcing on the mainpage YEARS after this discussion has been going on, and if you weren't continuing to do exactly the same in every single DYK queue since this first came to light, thanks to TK's unfortunate dip into the mess here. It 'might be hyperbole if you all were doing a single thing to stop it. You're not: you're enabling it and continuing it and several DYK regulars have evidenced that they have no clue or concern for Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the copyvio really needs to be addressed. From the source [9]: 'in which contestants would have to guess the identity of a celebrity based on a few given clues.' From the article: "and a section called "What's My Name?", in which contestants sought to guess the identity of a celebrity based on a few clues. This from the first sentence I've checked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a somewhat close paraphrase, but information cannot be copyrighted. I don't think it would qualify as a copyvio, as there is paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Simply changing a few words most certainly can constitute copyvio. I don't know what you mean by your statement that information cannot be copyrighted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to deny the seriousness of problems like copyvio and close paraphrasing, and the examples raised are valid and will require action, but many of the other supposedly "egregiously bad" examples are relatively minor and in some cases, nonexistent. This particular article, for example, hasn't even been reviewed - and yet it's being used as an example of DYK's supposedly broken processes. Threads like this are just becoming a distraction when we are already discussing methods of improving the system. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In one sentence (5 words out of a total of 15 or so)? No. A few words in a whole article? Most definitely. As for information, perhaps facts would have been a better term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Crisco - I looked at one sentence from one source in one article. We don't count words - we look at similarity. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to rewrite source material that I find worrying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but using one example that is only one sentence long is not the best way to show a possible violation. Numerous structural and lexical similarities would be best. Naturally, if we are worried about it we could rewrite the article, with more paraphrasing and whatnot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty big problem here when two DYK regulars don't understand the seriousness even when it's black and white. No, people who don't get this should not be working at DYK in *any* capacity-- we cannot be putting this kind of thing regularly on the mainpage, and the reason it hasn't been fixed in more than a couple of years of awareness is the the DYK regulars either don't get it or don't care. I don't know if this is incompetence or indifference, but it's quite alarming. By now, someone should have started a copyvio investigation on the Billy editor doing this (and no, Carcharoth, I can't keep all the players straight here, nor do I presume to remember in the midst of a discussion that Crisco is 1942-- there's something to be said for choosing a username others can remember). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

An investigation of the nominator would be acceptable, although I take offence at the suggestion that I do not understand basic copyright law. As I have noted above, facts cannot be copyrighted; it would be ridiculous to try and copyright the fact that Wikipedia was founded in 2001, for example. The wording of the facts themselves may be copyrighted, but a single sentence is not always indicative of a violation, especially when efforts were made to paraphrase it. As for the user name, I have had it for nearly 5 years now and the meaning is explained explicitly on my userpage. You are the first to complain that it is too hard to remember, and if you feel so please call me Crisco. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Using a single sentence is called spotchecking. It's how it's done. If I were a teacher or a professor, spotchecked and found that, I'd know all I needed. This is pretty much best practice for finding copyvio. We have 3 million or more articles - the best that can be done is spotcheck a few at a time. That's how it works, and the example is quite clearly copyvio. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quite clear on what spotchecking is; I've done it myself with my students. However, spotchecking and demonstrating copyright violations are two completely different balls of wax; a spotcheck helps to find the copyvio, but numerous similarities prove it. You seem to have submitted the above as proof of a copyright violation. Perhaps a link to the tool's readings would help? I forget its name. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The tool is my eyes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This tool would help show possible copyvios much more thoroughly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It gives this, which doesn't convince me of anything but a close paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh for gosh sakes, stop the obfuscating: DYK puts serial plagiarizers on the mainpage, all the time, and even when they know it, they continue to do it. That's a bigger point than the fact that many regulars here don't consider it their job to stop enabling writers to violate Wikipedia BLP, sourcing and copyvio policies. Focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm highly tempted to hat most of this discussion so that we can focus; we have 7 (and counting) sub sections to this thread. Yes, you are showing good indicators that we have a problem of close paraphrasing, which as mentioned somewhere on this talk page is a guideline and not a policy. As to whether or not it is close enough to be called a copyvio, we have numerous editors who could be called in to weigh in on it. However, the I doubt the actions of a single editor should be used to waterboard the entire DYK community. Perhaps you would like to check some of the other articles featured today and then let us know if it is DYK that is at fault or the one editor. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hatting it shoves the problem under the rug. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, could someone please choose which subsection we should continue this discussion in? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is done. Sandy brought up the article; I spotchecked and found problems. You seem to believe this kind of writing is acceptable for main page content. There's nothing more to discuss, but the section should stay as documentation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Crisco, might I inquire if you were involved over the years the numerous times we've had this same discussion, and nothing has been done about it-- in fact, it's gotten worse? Last time it was other editors, the same denialists and enablers denied the problem, hence the problem is still here. Next week it will be another editor, because your the DYK process is deficient, you've DYK has done nothing to correct it, and it only got worse after last year's Halloween debacle. No, you won't hat it-- as long as every queue has blatant policy violations, and you all do nothing about it, and five (at least) RFCs are running, I will continue to highlight that you've DYK has done zilch, for many years, except shoot the messenger and complain that I'm highlighting yourthe faulty process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate using a less ambiguous term than you, because if you are referring to me (the editor) then I am beginning to consider this a borderline personal attack. I have not done zilch for years, as I have been active at DYK for only a few months; I have not become an enabler (I have tried to review thoroughly); I have tried to correct it, which is why I am here discussing this at 9pm on a Saturday night; I have not "shot the messenger" (I have offered that you try reviewing a couple current noms at least twice, to catch problems before they become problems). As for the copyright issue, I have already noted numerous times; a close paraphrase cannot be considered a blatant copyvio. I have offered a link to the tool to help TK prove his/her statement, although the results seem ambiguous to me. I have also tried to forgive your twisting of my comments. Please, can we discuss this in a neutral and less standoffish manner? None of us right now are stellar examples of civility. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point about my generic vs specific use of "you"-- I have corrected above, it's a frequent fault of mine (as is not knowing full editor names and shortening them, even on TK, an editor I know well). Anyway, once again, you may consider my tone harsh if you think this is a stand-alone incident: it's not, it's a repeat month after month, year after year, that DYK does not address. THe only thing that changes is a new crop of serial offenders and a new crop of enablers/denialists every few months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply and fix. I've noticed a general distrust of DYK held by numerous editors (especially those active in FA), but this is the first truly contentious debate I have participated in. Right now Billy's hooks are in the process of being double checked. As for the further changes... I do not know. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the essay on close paraphrasing may be an essay, but it is not so much a stand-alone essay, as a practical interpretation of a very firm and pretty universal policy on copyvios and plagiarism. I agree we need to do something here. I think the first thing is to check if it is more generalised or not. Agree we should all work together and maybe all take a breather. Ha, it's 1 am where I am. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: I guess it also highlights the tightrope walking of content contribution, too close to sources and we veer close to copyvio, too far and it's into OR or synthesis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually 10... I must have lost track of time Indeed it does, and it is something we need to worry about. However, I don't see a firm definition of when paraphrasing becomes too close. My interpretation is that the article or section would have to be based mostly on one source to be closely paraphrased; if it uses numerous reliable sources, with paraphrasing, to paint a complete picture of the subject, it would be a new creation. Methinks, at least. A cup of tea would be nice... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Just to clarify here, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is an essay, but it was built to clarify a point of policy that causes confusion: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." (It used to say paraphrase too closely, but that was simplified for users who may be less familiar with the term some time back.) Whether a paraphrase is close enough to reach the level of copyright infringement or not is always going to be complex and based on a number of factors (if taking is substantial in size or importance and the use is not justifiable under fair use or other legal defense, it's a copyvio), but Wikipedia tends to be somewhat conservative on its use of non-free content; obviously, that's a line we don't want to test. :) Articles that follow closely on nonfree sources (one or multiple) are usually tagged for rewriting or, if taking is extensive, blanked with {{copyvio}} for rewriting and listed at WP:CP. (I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Crisco, that "a close paraphrase cannot be considered a blatant copyvio"--if you mean in terms of a speediable vio under WP:CSD#G12, I think that's generally true, unless the paraphrase is very close; however, the courts have tended to have little difficulty in finding infringement in close paraphrasing cases.)

In any event, it's best to catch these articles before they develop too far, which puts DYK into a good position to help here. If we catch problems when they are fresh, we give the contributor an opportunity to learn the way Wikipedia utilizes non-free content ("in your own words", except for brief, explicitly marked quotations), hopefully retaining an enthusiastic contributor. And we keep other contributors from inadvertently investing a lot of time into an article that is fundamentally unretainable (at least without extensive rewriting). I wonder if it would be helpful to occasionally revisit the question of close paraphrasing here, to give reviewers some pointers about what to look for and reminders about why? (Maybe it would be helpful to revisit the unique challenges of sourcing BLPs, too.)

I have not had an opportunity to review concerns in these articles yet beyond what's written here. I'm on my laptop at the moment, away from home, and I'm much more comfortable on my desktop. :/ If there are extensive concerns, a WP:CCI might be a good idea to make sure that problems are identified and addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded on MRG talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how Sandy was using blatant, but speedy was my interpretation of it, yes. As I mentioned above, I believe those close paraphrases could still be rewritten. Thanks for the quick, well-worded, thorough reply. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Crisco does not see a problem with close paraphrasing (I believe TK set him straight on that, hopefully), he's not the person to be opining on Wikipedia Copyvio. A CCI on Billy Hathorn is needed, but so is an ANI or an RFC; he should not be editing without mentorship or admin oversight. But that is not our issue here: our issue here is that DYK enables and encourages the creation of content that does not meet Wikipedia policies, in fact, DYK regulars are rarely aware, and infrequently concerned, that DYK routinely violates Wikipedia policies. What is DYK doing about content CURRENTLY going on the mainpage that does not meet policy? Until there is some accountability for the admin who puts the content on the mainpage, there will be no long-term change here: this discussion will die away as they always do, and a year from now we'll still find DYK providing endorphin highs to editors who can't write to meet GA or FA standards or even Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that I stated numerous times that it could/should be rewritten. Please do not base comments on selective memory. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The show goes on, next again

Today's DYK: Thomas G. Carmody. First, does anyone here care to explain why several of those sources are reliable, or how you can qualify as having expanded an article based on non-reliable sources? More importantly, why, in the midst of this discussion, is DYK STILL doing same ???

• Source: Carmody first made a name for himself in the community in 2003 by pushing for an independent review of the police-related shooting death of Marquise Hudspeth, which made national headlines at the time.

• Article: In 2003, councilman Carmody pushed for an independent review of the police-related shooting death of Marquise Hudspeth, which at the time acquired national headlines.

This is BLATANT. I didn't even check the rest of the article-- that one was only the first I saw. Who approved the hook? And Cas, I'd like to know why you put it on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My name came up as the DYK giver as I moved the batch from the prep area to the queue. I wasn't aware of the issues at that point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas-- I appreciate the explanation, because the system and lack of archives here is MUCH too complex for an outsider to understand. So, the next question is, what is DYK doing now to shut down this editor, and who will bring in the copyvio people? He's got hundreds of DYKs that need looking at by people who know copyvio. Must I do everything? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

He still has numerous noms at T:TDYK, which could be double checked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good place to start, and a friendly word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, all of those should be put on hold until someone explicitly takes responsibility for checking them for close paraphrasing problems. Are there any in prep and the queues? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

At least one: Ricky Templet in Queue 5. I'll add more if I see them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike Futrell in Prep 3 Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I queried MRG, and now I must get on with my day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunday July 24

Today's DYK deficiency (quick glance only). My prose size script isn't working today, but another recurring problem in DYKs is that the expansion/size crit are being met by padding articles with text from non-reliable sources and text that doesn't belong in the article. How can DYKers continue to claim that they only need to verify the hook? How are you all determining that crit. are met without checking all sources and reviewing the whole article? DYK encourages and enables the creation of faulty articles. From today:

• Pole Creek Wilderness
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • Why is this text in the article at all?
    • Wilderness areas do not allow motorized or mechanical equipment including bicycles. Although camping and fishing are allowed with proper permit, no roads or buildings are constructed and there is also no logging or mining, in compliance with the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness areas within National Forests and Bureau of Land Management areas also allow hunting in season.
      • That information belongs in a link about Wilderness Areas.
• So, if you subtract this extraneous or poorly sourced info, does the article meet minimum expansion requirements?

  How does Wikipedia benefit from DYK enabling and encouraging new and old users alike to create content that does not meet Wikipedia policies and will eventually need cleanup? Except for those who continue on to GA or FA, my experience with most DYKers is that they abandon the sloppy stubs after they create them, and they are never cleaned up. DYK has no useful purpose on Wikipedia, and in an environment of declining editorship, we can ill afford this creation of deficient articles.

  I didn't even look for plagiarism today, since as of yet I do not see anyone here doing anything about that already identified. It is apparent that this problem is going to go unchecked, even as I have demonstrated it's been going on for more than three years, because DYKers want their endorphin high from being on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuing the topic of articles being padded to meet DYK expansion requirments, look at one of the current examples of copyvio, already offered for your non-consideration:

• Gordon Dove (Louisiana politician)
  • Dove's only son, Gordon "Bubba" Dove, Jr. (June 7, 1986—March 29, 2009) had helped his father in the operations of the family holdings. At the time of his death, he was the president of Blue Marlin Oilfield and Equipment Rentals, Inc. The younger Dove died at twenty-two in a sport utility vehicle accident on Interstate 310 near Destrehan. He was returning to Houma from a charity concert for Hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans. Young Dove's vehicle careened across the highway, crashed into the right barrier, and overturned several times. His seat belt was not fastened. Partially thrown out the back window and pinned beneath the SUV, he died at the scene.
• Besides that the content was previously copied, why is this extensive commentary about his son even in this article? And by the way, since when its rootsweb.ancestry a reliable source? How can DYK continue to enable and support and encourage this kind of article creation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over a hook

Would be great if this disagreement receives some third opinion. _morelMW^illiam 08:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented in the thread, although I was pre-empted by another comment from Binksternet. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion/question

Reading the commentary above I very much agree with Gatoclass that there is a need to reduce the number of DYK submissions and in order for us to do that DYK nomination standards have to be raised (basically we need to make it harder to write DYK-worthy article - I'd start with a simple no brainer of raising min character count to 2500 characters). But the other side of the problem is potentially sloppy reviewing. I was wondering then if it would be possible to somehow change how reviewers mark articles they've checked.

Right now, if I go to review an article I'm told where to put my comment and given the list of 'ticks': · · · · . But there's nothing on the page which will tell or remind me what the actual rules for DYK are. Back in the day when doing reviews I often had to go back and look up the Rules (particularly since I kept thinking articles had to be 2500 characters) each time just to make sure.

What I think would better is if there was a built in template that pops up new nominations when you open the edit window to give your review of the article. It shouldn't be a all or nothing one either (though to get it passed all aspect would have to be approved) but should specifically list the things that need to be checked, as a reminder to reviewers. I would include in the template something like

{{hook length=|hook source=|adequate sourcing=|article length=|vintage=|close paraphrasing=|sources accessible=|comment=}}

which would be very much like the template for DYK nominations themselves (and you can stick the cute little 'ticks' in there). Of source these sections of the review template can be named whatever but basically such a template should remind reviewers that they need to check all of these things (the last one "sources accessible" would just indicate whether they sources are available easily (which basically means online and in English), with "agf" an option).

While this would probably not deter any kind of unscrupulous reviewers, it would make it immediately explicit to everyone what is expected of them in the review process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a very clever and interesting idea, VM. Right now, a potential reviewer who clicks "Edit" on an article entry at T:TDYK sees a Page notice with templates designed to help people nominating articles, not people reviewing them. Reviewers don't need that information but they could use different information, and a different template. Does one of our resident ninjas know how to implement this? Sharktopus ^talk 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's one possibility I guess, although it would make for a more cluttered page. I think the main problem is that DYK admins tend to get a little slack from time to time. Perhaps we just need to more strongly emphasize the need for admins to check hooks thoroughly for problems before loading them into the queue. It's what is supposed to happen, but overworked admins sometimes resort to cutting corners. Gatoclass (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but this is exactly part of "more strongly emphasize". How else would you do it? Tsk tsk people after the fact?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I really like this proposal to improve the supporting structure. It is simple, it is targeted, and it is quantized (easy to tell whether it has been implemented or not). Sharktopus ^talk 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It could work provided it doesn't take up too much space. I guess it could be implemented something like article rating templates - you have a series of questions to which you respond "y" or "n", and based on your input, the template outputs the appropriate icon. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some version of this seems worth trying. -- Khazar (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

you have a series of questions to which you respond "y" or "n", and based on your input, the template outputs the appropriate icon - yes, that's exactly the idea I had in mind. The only wrinkle would be that the "checked sources" entry would have an "AGF" option for sources that are not available online or are not in English.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped a couple of new updates into the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

...and I've now moved 2 more preps into the queue, and have populated 3 prep areas for double checking by someone else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500

It is regularly pointed out, correctly, that reducing the number of hooks that rotate through the main page, will not solve the problems, because it will not reduce the number of submissions that need to be evaluated. Therefore, a proposal is to increase the readable prose minimum requirement from 1500 characters to 2500 characters. This should not be very difficult to achieve for the vast majority of articles (I just checked one of my own rather start-class DYKs and it came to 2275 chars, so certainly possible to improve it a bit), and it should act to reduce, slightly, the number of incoming submissions. This would give reviewers and administrators more time to deal with reviewing and checking, and also in turn support a reduction of the number of hooks rotating through the main page, to focus more on quality (and less on plagiarism, sensationalism, boring hooks).

• Support as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support for a start. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this !vote is premature. !Votes should never be proposed before thorough discussion, and this notion has barely been discussed at all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Gatoclass. There are already a bunch of proposals and discussions, and "voting" on any one is premature. I think that's how the QPQ problem came about-- the desire for a quick fix without a serious analysis of how to get a long-term fix. I for one would want to know how you're going to check even more content if smaller articles aren't being checked now? It is not OK that, even if the hook is checked, we're putting some really faulty articles on the mainpage-- why would this not mean we're putting even more faulty content linked from the mainpage? Perhaps this is the only way to slow down submissions; isn't there another way? Editors who don't understand how to correctly represent sources in their own words can do 2,500 words just as fast as they can do 1,500-- the original editor whose plagiarism brought this problem to my attention was one of DYK's most prolific editors. He turned out plagiarized bios from obits that set records, and no one caught it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, I don't want to slow down submissions, I like the fact that lots of different hooks get featured and that less talented editors can get some encouragement through this process. And I think we would have to slow down submissions a lot before it started having an impact on quality of reviews. IMO we would be better to stick to trying to improve the reviewing at Prep level for the present, we don't want to start making radical changes when they may not be necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good points. My gut feeling is that having a panel of directors where the buck stops might be a better way to address all of the issues, but you really really really need a clearer, easier, more transparent process with archives, as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are doing the archives thing, it was recently decided to have a separate page for each submission, it's just that the coder is unavailable right now. I think your notion of sanctions for sloppy reviewing may also have merit BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that-- that's good news, glad to hear of the improvement. We don't need to point fingers, but you can't solve problems unless you know who is committing them and why (and that's why I keep asking why Crisco ran the alt hook instead of the one TK reviewed-- why did s/he do that? You can't solve the problem without knowing what went into making the problem.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the discussion here is endless, so many pages of it that every time a major concern is raised (which, let's face it, could be done on a daily basis given the quality of some of the material going through) then the process gets backlogged because the people who keep the system running are busy replying to yet another round of discussion. (As just happened). You all need to work out how your proposed directorate is going to keep up with maintaining quality for that level of submissions, if there's never going to be any willingness to increase the standards for submissions or tell anyone they don't have an absolute right to put their article on the main page if they can get it to meet a very basic list of requirements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't like to further my proposal when you all know better, but my idea is something like this. Admins move the queue to the main page. That is the point at which problems should be identified-- the critical point that matters. Ditch the "any admin" can move it, set up a panel, a directorate at that level, only that panel can place the content on the main page, and they are responsible for EVERYTHING about that hook-- not only that plagiarism and copyvio are avoided, but that other policies are upheld as well. At that level, if an already approved hook has to be rejected, then that nominator can't put up another DYK for a month, and that reviewer can't approve a hook for another month. Just an idea-- you all can make it better. IF a "director" makes repeat mistakes, resulting in mainpage debacles, that director will find him/herself out of business soon, in a vote of no-confidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be an ideal system, but I doubt we would ever have the manpower for it. However, I think it might be possible to start doing a few things to tighten up quality control until an appropriate standard is reached, some of which have already been suggested in the various threads above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But what would that achieve beyond a blame game? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about "blame game"-- putting some brakes on like this encourages nominators and reviewers alike to get it right the first time, hence lowers wasted reviewer time. OK, Gato, how about a middle of the road compromise? You're at four queues per day now, right? Lower it to only three-- you're not losing that much, the directorate will have more time to review, and quality will improve and those that submit faulty articles will be ..... ummmmmm ... exposed and less likely to continue submissions, so submissions will decline slightly while improving in quality, so that you can hopefully move back to four queues daily once the new system is working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Too many people have come to see it as their right to have their article on DYK if it's 1500 characters—even if it's crap, and even if the hook is boring. I don't think that will stop if we up the character limit, and I think folks here are unwilling to say no to nominators, especially prolific ones who throw their weight around to get their article on DYK. Most importantly, though, meeting an arbitrary character count is not an indicator of the quality of the article. It would be difficult to write a decent article in less than 1500 characters, but it's relatively easy to write a long, crappy article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• No. This has been brought up numerous times before; it would be nice of the proposer to provide links to past iterations of this proposal. The reasons it has been opposed include: 1) quantity != quality; 2) increasing the length limit won't decrease the number of noms (if someone wants to nom, they'll write as much as they need to to do it); 3) increasing the length limit will just increase the fluff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I have found numerous articles that are quite tricky to get from 1500 to 2500 chars, but more importantly recently-promoted GAs I think provide a better ground of recently-improved-vetted articles. Their introduction will slow the rate down a little. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support as I've suggested this before. To address some of the comments made above:
  • Sandy, this of course isn't meant as a fix-it-all approach, in fact, I don't see why it wouldn't be complementary to some of the suggestions you're making. Second, I don't see that this proposal would increase the amount of content that needs to be checked. By eliminating shorter noms it would decrease it.
  • Gatoclass, your contention that this hasn't been discussed before contradicts Rjanag's contention that this has been discussed before. Basically, it has been discussed before but I've never seen a good argument not to implement it and the discussion usually gets derailed by "it won't solve all the problems", or in other words, people making the perfect the enemy of the good.
  • HJ Mitchell, of course character count isn't a perfect indicator of quality but let's face it, a 1500 character article is barely more than a stub (honestly, it is a stub). As long as sourcing is required - which it is - then in fact it is harder to write 2500 character article than a 1500 one. And one way or another we're gonna have a character minimum and it's always going to be somewhat arbitrary. Obviously we don't want 500 character articles. Or 5 character articles. So some line has to be drawn. And I think the current line is too lax/low.
  • Rjanag, 1) yes, quantity does not necessarily imply better quality but I think in this case it does. A 1500 character article is better than a 15 character article, no? And a 2500 character article is likely to be better than a 1500 character article? Now, if you're talking, I dunno, 5k vs. 10k then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not what is being discussed here. 2) increasing the length limit won't decrease the number of noms - how do you know? Seriously. You got data or something? Evidence? At least a logical argument for why that would be so? By upping the character count you're increasing the cost on the writer which means the laziest people won't submit noms. And that's the whole point. 3) increasing the length limit will just increase the fluff - how in the world do you get that? You just pulled that out of thin air. Completely unsupported assertion that doesn't even make sense. It might be true if sourcing isn't required, but it is.
  • Casliber, I have found numerous articles that are quite tricky to get from 1500 to 2500 chars - yes and that's exactly the point! If a topic doesn't have 2500 chars in it, it shouldn't be featured. Maybe as a list or something but not a DYK at least. recently-promoted GAs I think provide a better ground of recently-improved-vetted articles - sure and I supported that idea above. But why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both? I've never seen a GA that is less than 2500 characters (and if there are such out there somebody needs to review them again) so this proposal is not going to affect that proposal in anyway.

Basically it's hard to escape the feeling that the opposition comes from the "it's not perfect, hence it's not good" attitude or something like "I didn't think of it first, so it can't be good". I'll stop there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to your comments addressed to me: more in-depth discussion of all these issues is included in the previous discussions of this perennial proposal. The person proposing it this time neglected his responsibility to share links to the past discussions, but if you look up those discussions you can find answers to these questions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't agree with the rationale for this proposal. The idea seems to be that a longer prose requirement will reduce the number of submissions. Well, maybe. But will it "give reviewers and administrators more time to deal with reviewing and checking"? No. The problem isn't that we don't have time to review nominations. Rather, the problem is that there aren't people reviewing half of the noms until they're two weeks old, and by that time it's difficult to get an editor/nominator to make changes within the expected timeframe. If DYK participants just spent more time reviewing newly nominated articles, instead of bickering, there wouldn't be a problem for us to have to fix. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's silly that we're !voting on this at all without a more comprehensive discussion as a preamble, but if other editors insist we are, I guess I might as well cast my !ballot. My first instinct is that this is likely to do as much harm (more cluttery submissions, potentially suppressing quality submissions) as good (reducing workload, encouraging longer new articles). While I'm interested in looking at ideas to improve DYK quality control, this seems to me to be one of the less promising of the ideas proposed today, and I'm reluctant to introduce too many of these at the same time; attacking the issue nine different ways at the same time seems likely to create confusion, and be potentially less effective than if we applied solutions one at a time. And finally, I'd to show V. Marek that not everybody opposing this is doing it because only because they "didn't think of it first", since I've agreed with one of his excellent proposals elsewhere on this page, which I didn't think of first either. =) -- Khazar (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, I think the quality is hardly correlating with the quantity in a simple linear relation. The more concise the better, encouraging "fluff" is not the way to improve article quality, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Quantity does not always mean quality, as shown by numerous POV rants found in the histories of controversial articles. Someone could write 50k of readable text that is a POV rant and it would be less worthy than 1,500 bytes of well researched information on a difficult to research subject. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Length does not equal quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think that's a good idea as it is hard to get some new articles up to 1500 let alone 2500 based on certain sources that avaliable at the time. And in support of Blofeld's comment, quality not quantity. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've considered this many times before; read what I wrote then. cmadler (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as someone said above 1500 is little more than a stub. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Also more emphasis on expansions, less on new articles per se (soften the 5x).TCO (reviews needed) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

blame game (or some nicer name for it)

Picking out one of SandyGeorgia's ideas, "if an already approved hook has to be rejected, then that nominator can't put up another DYK for a month, and that reviewer can't approve a hook for another month" - what is wrong with this suggestion, even separately to any other change? (I would change it to the reviewer being prevented from approving hooks or nominating them, since the current QPQ system means that one reason for doing a rushed review might be that they want to get their own nomination on the main page fast.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge by your own admission, the current fiasco was created by a "novice". Don't worry I won't come around here again. You don't need to add more instruction creep to ensure that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A variation of what Demiurge proposes seems reasonable to me, though I'd suggest adding more room for discretion to account for new users making mistakes. In my first weeks on DYK, I approved two hooks that were later changed to requested revisions for minor causes, and also rejected one hook that an admin overturned as okay; I was doing my best, but just missed some of the less-emphasized criteria. Since DYK is a more likely starting point for new editors than other projects, I don't want to slap them down too hard or make them feel unwelcome.
Still, I could name 2 or 3 regular DYK contributors who appear to give incomplete reviews that I've seen repeatedly overturned by other editors, sometimes just putting the check icon without even a word. DYK doesn't seem to have a system to deal with that yet, but I think it's reasonable to ask these reviewers to be more thorough, and if necessary, to ask them to take a break for a bit. -- Khazar (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think some version of Demiurge's accountability idea would be good, though I personally think a week would be better. A penalty too stiff will just spawn meatpuppet nominations. Hey, TK, you probably did us a favor by coming in as a relative novice and making an innocent error that somebody else should have picked up and set right. It was generous and helpful, the way you stepped up and explained your process, so that we could look for ways to improve. And apparently your skills in other areas picked up a couple of copyvio problems somebody else might have missed. What happened was a mistake in adhering to DYK's own rule, not a violation of BLP policy and certainly not a scandal or a fiasco. It resulted in an Error on the Main Page, and we are trying to figure out more and better ways to prevent such. Driving away a conscientious, intelligent reviewer like TK is not something anyone wants. Sharktopus ^talk 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed not - I certainly don't. And this proposal wouldn't be retrospective anyway. The implementation of this challenge has helped fix some copyvio issues and also resulted in further improvements to the DYK documentation. That's not instruction creep, that's (a bit of) progress in the right direction.

A week sounds a bit short to me... some problematic nominators/reviewers might only do one article a week or less anyway. How about two weeks? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not yet thought about this proposal enough to support or oppose it, but if such a proposal is to be enacted, I'd suggest that a month is probably the right length. I'll agree that it's probably reasonable to (somehow) penalize a "reviewer" who fails to give a thorough review. It might be reasonable to penalize a nominator who nominates an unusable (rejected -- whether initially or after a erroneous approval) article/hook, though I think good-faith allowances should be made in the case of a suitable article with an unsuitable hook nomination (as in the recent case that sparked the discussion) and particularly in the case of new-to-DYK nominators. On the other hand, experienced DYK nominators (not going to name names here, but I'm sure most regulars can think of a few) who regularly submit unsuitable articles, especially when it's the same problem repeatedly, should be given very little slack. cmadler (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is quite a storm I seem to have inadvertently caused. I do not support an extended limit. However, if possible we should add another rule for somewhat negative hooks, roughly reading "any hook fact that can be construed as a negative should be cited in at least two reliable sources. Hopefully that can avoid most problems of a similar nature. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Imposing timeouts for reviewers will be quite ineffective since they will leave their articles in their sandbox and then just submit them at the end of the timout. I guess what we could do, if a QPQ review gets pulled from the queue for some reason, is to scrap the reviewer's accompanying submission. It would be harsh, but would I think be a very effective way of ensuring that QPQ reviews were thorough. We might need to outline the precise conditions under which a submission is scrapped however, which could be a little tricky. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but perhaps difficult to implement. It is a rare event that a hook gets pulled back from the queues, AFAIK. Even being pulled back from Prep isn't that common an occurrence. I have a question though: what should we do if the hook is pulled back from the queue or prep due to a problem that could not reasonably be foreseen, such as the lizard hook currently scheduled for August 9? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I said it would be difficult to come up with a clear criteria. I'm not sure it would actually be practical, it's just something to think about. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

dunno, I think this proposal comes over as quite heavy :( no easy answers though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts from a semi-regular

1. The somewhat enforceable request for an interesting hook encourages sensationalism.
2. A raise in the character limit will lead to more padding and chattiness---not to better, or even less fewer, submissions.  Done This is an argument in favor of the status quo. cmadler (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
3. The request for reviews ("QPQ" reviewing) was a bad idea. We tried it, it did not work, we should scrap it again.
4. To "ban" editors or reviewers for a period of time will not work: Who's going to check this with 40-odd submissions per day?  Done This is an argument in favor of the status quo. cmadler (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
5. The mose basic of all rules is missing: That the hook ref must be a reliable, independent source.  Done Issue #5 is solved. --Pgallert (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Implement a subset of Good article criteria without a minimal length and with a drastically reduced request for comprehensiveness. Then run one hook set per day. --Pgallert (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• According to the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This applies to everything on Wikipedia, so I figured that it would go without repeating, but since you mention it, I've added that in appropriate places to the DYK rules, with a piped link to that guideline. cmadler (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pgallert's words are some of the most eminently sensible I've seen on this site for some time. Support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Ghmyrtle. --Pgallert (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

cmadler, the articles must indeed be based on reliable sources, but the hook fact need not, according to current standards of reviewing. In fact, for the DYK hook often the shadiest of all article sources is employed because that one allows the most surprising hook. --Pgallert (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The hook citation must be in the article, and therefore it is subject to the same strictures as articles. It may be that this has not been regularly enforced or investigated before a nomination made it to the Main Page, but that does not mean the stricture does not apply. It does. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. Articles may contain unreliable (for instance self-published) sources, as long as notability is not derived from them. Articles must be based on reliable sources, not exclusively employ them. The problem is that nothing in the DYK rules forbids editors to pick this very reference to build a hook. --Pgallert (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the rest of the opening sentence of that policy: ..."and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles". Since a sensational DYK hook is either a majority opinion or significant as a minority opinion, its citation is covered by this policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

... or at least, we can infer that. So Pgallert is right, we need to add more rulecreep to make that explicit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way, this is something many (most?) of us have been enforcing already, such as in cases where a place-article's hook comes only from a travel website. So, I would see an emendation to "Da Rules" more as a codification of existing practice, in order to make the point explicit (and easier to justify to nominators), than as rulecreep (which carries a pejorative connotation). --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to change the rules in this regard. Of course hooks must be reliably sourced - reviewers shouldn't need to be reminded of such basic principles, if they do, they shouldn't be reviewing. AFAIK this has not been raised as a problem in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they shouldn't need to be reminded doesn't mean that they shouldn't be reminded. Better to be safe than sorry, particularly with "over-enthusiastic" reviewers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's instruction creep - in this case, completely redundant instruction creep since it's just a reiteration of a core wikipedia policy. And I don't believe it will have the slightest effect on the quality of reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost whenever you see a hook in the form "A said X", someone has violated that principle. Currently for instance Sam Johnson (New Zealand) where all hooks are sourced with (1) a commentary and (2) a University press release. None of the hooks received a tick so far but the discussion is not about reliable sources. Already okayed is Hunter Greene, the independence of the reference is not apparent to me. See also George McGavin where a reviewer just argues in the direction that hook refs need not be reliable and independent. This is what I found in 15 minutes on a very slow Internet connection; I bet 1000 major edits that there are more in the current set of submissions, and I remember a variety of cases from the past. This is not an isolated incident. --Pgallert (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Greene and McGavin look problematic to me too; see how easy that was? You can do it too! cmadler (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to explain that DYK in general operates like this, to an extent that editors specifically argue that a reliable source is not necessary for a DYK hook. Your addition to the rules solved the problem, see a few posts below. --Pgallert (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that when you read the comments that raised the problem of reliability of citations for George McGavin, you re-interpreted those comments as meaning "that hook refs need not be reliable". That's the opposite of what the comments are saying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well-intentioned editors often disagree about what constitutes a suitably reliable source in a given situation (as in the case above, where it's a question of whether a self-published source is acceptable -- and remember that sometimes it is), but I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that a reliable source is unneeded. cmadler (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm struggling to understand what it is exactly that you are proposing. Our current rules state (I quote):

The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable.

That seems to me to explain the requirement quite clearly. What do you think is missing? Gatoclass (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I just added "to a reliable source" to that rule yesterday afternoon. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

After that addition my point 5 is solved, thank you. I just wasn't sure that this change of rules would stick but judging from the discussion elsewhere on this page I guess it has consensus. Somehow I feel this is a fundamental change that should be published somehow. --Pgallert (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's odd, I'm sure I checked the history to see when that clause had been added and didn't see any recent changes - possibly it was one of those occasions when the history page lags behind the actual edit. Anyway, I thoroughly approve of your change cmadler :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more than a wee bit appalling that anyone working at an area that puts content on the main page doesn't know that all Wikipedia content needs to be cited to reliable sources, much less what a reliable source is, but I'm more troubled that Gatoclass claims this discussion has not been about reliable sources, when in fact I pointed out early on that a failure to use reliable sources, and misrepresentation of sources, was as prevalent in hooks as plagiarism and BLP bios are, and I have in fact indicated one in this very discussion that uses a non-reliable source. Is there no sense of decency here? I suppose my alarm is just continuing to fall on tone deaf ears. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my comments - I didn't mean reliable sources are not an issue, I meant no-one had suggested merely rewording our instructions as a solution. As for the fact that some unreliable sources might be used - as long as the bulk of the article is reliably sourced, and the questionably sourced content is not controversial, I am not necessarily going to make an issue of that. Again, this is not GA, it's DYK, we don't have a week to spend on every article, we aim at ensuring there are no major defects, we don't have the time or resources to address every minor detail. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification-- that helps. I do find it astounding that we have to mention anywhere at any time that *all* Wikipedia content should be cited to reliable sources. But the bigger problem that is emerging at DYK is that you are putting BLPs sourced to non-reliable sources on the main page, and you continue to do that today,[10] with editors who are known not to understand sourcing. If you don't have the time and resources to assure that you aren't putting egregiously bad articles on the mainpage, you should not be putting anything on the mainpage. GA has better quality control, and we no longer need to encourage article creation, particularly when so many of those articles created are just messes someone else needs to clean up, and we no longer have enough editors to clean up these messes. Let's encourage quality content improvements, not the kind of stuff DYK runs on the mainpage, hoping someone else will bring them to Wikipedia standards, not to mention standards of human decency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So, will you be actually helping here, or merely criticizing the volunteers who do the actual work? Have you ever looked at the Queue for problems before they went up on the Main Page, or do you wait for them to appear on the Main Page first and then come here to complain? There is a Queue where hooks are placed in advance of appearing on the Main Page, and you can help spot problems before they appear on the Main Page (which would be helpful), or you can sit back and just complain (which is unhelpful). Instead of telling the volunteers what to do, why not actually pitch in and show us how to do it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That you have to ask those questions shows that you aren't paying attention. Perhaps you weren't around DYK last Halloween, or perhaps you aren't familiar with how often I tried to help and how often the denialists scream when I do? Please do your homework before making statements about me-- the delightful thing about Wikipedia is that it's all there in history. Including the fact that no matter how many times I looked *before* articles ran, you still ran them, just exactly as you are still running articles from a serial offender. No accountability, and yet, what, you want me to do your work for you? Fix your process-- it's broken. Soooo ... in addition to rampant plagiarism and close paraphrasing, and BLP vios, we have numerous DYKs built extensively on non-reliable sources. So, if you must have a minimum expansion and size, how can you verify that criteria are met without looking at whether articles are reliably sourced? So, anyone can put any ole crap on a page and get a DYK, and then you expect *real* editors to come along later and clean up the mess? How is this helping Wikipedia? You still have Quid Pro Quo reviewing-- nominators who may know little to nothing of Wikipedia policies reviewing nominations from other nominators who may know even less. What are you all doing about the systemic problems here, other than complaining that I'm complaining about it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I did in fact look at your recent edit history. I'm sorry that I didn't realize I'd have to go all the way to last October (9 months ago) to find your participation. Such an absence strongly suggests abandonment. You do seem to have a lot of time in recent days to point out flaws and to spot mistakes after they happen, but in the recent weeks and months have not worked to prevent the problems you're pointing out. This creates a self-fulfilling phophecy. You haven't worked to prevent the problems, because if you do, then you won't be able to complain about them afterwords. The biggest problem right now with DYK (and always) is that there aren't enough people taking the initiative to review nominations. If people actually did that, in a timely fashion, we wouldn't need to wrangle about all the other issues.

And what have I been doing? I've been reviewing articles, pointing out uncited hooks, encouraging explicit citations, and contributing to the project. The DYK is a developmental effort that points new editors towards the standards of Wikipedia through interactive education. GA and FA processes only deal with elitist advanced editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have avoided this conversation for the past few days but I do have to throw in that I agree with Sandy and others about QPQ reviewing being a problem. Granted, it was implemented to solve another problem (and I feel partially responsible for it, because last year during the DYK plagiarism ruckus I remember complaining about editors who nominate tons of articles and never review, although I didn't personally propose QPQ), but it hasn't solved that problem (the backlog is still as long as always) and it has created new problems (crappy reviews). We should just get rid of QPQ and go back to the way things were before: an understanding, similar to at WP:PR, that if you nominate it would be nice to offset your nomination by also reviewing, but that it's not required. Forced reviews from people who don't want to be doing them are not worth the trouble they cause. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating the QPQ would be a good start, but wouldn't solve all of the problems here. Some seem to think that mainpage exposure is a right, and that it's up to others to solve DYK's problems. An experienced Wikipedian came over here because she was challenged to help here, reviewed a hook, found numerous problems, got them corrected, and then some DYK regular came along and ran a *different* hook because it was splashier, and then three DYK regulars up the line missed that it violated UNDUE. So, these challenges to just get in here and help make no sense-- the process is broken, has been for as long as I've been editing, and the *process* needs adjustment, since there will be another new crop of regulars in here three months from now who don't know the history of DYK. It is not up to others to solve DYK's problems-- if DYK won't solve them, they should not be on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Sandy, that's not right, as I already explained above. I'm not quite sure why you keep repeating that inaccuracy, when TK has certainly made no attempt at any such pretence. There were two hooks for that nomination when TK came to do the review, and TK put their review underneath the second hook. TK did not specify which hook they were approving. The principal responsibility lies with the admin picking the hook and putting it in a queue (that's why only admins can do it...), but repeating yourself over and over in an attempt to re-write the facts of the incident according to your taste, makes your case weaker, not stronger. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I keep repeating it because it is right. TK did not review the alt hook becuase she didn't know she was supposed to (the process here is too complex), and the discussion at the thread makes it abundantly clear even to an idiot like me that she did not review the second hook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, you've been trying mighty hard to blame this on me. You know and I know that you challenged me to review a DYK for copyvio or plagiarism (which you seem to believe doesn't exist). I accepted your challenge and found problems. I did not comment on the hook. Although I don't have them displayed on my page, I've had plenty of DYKs and reviewed plenty of them. Usually the alt hook is exactly that: an alternative. I didn't comment because it didn't seem necessary; the primary hook was fine, except I didn't actually check the wording of the hook and if I had I would have found it too was plagiarized. In the future if you want to throw stones please come to my page to do so. Thanks. 13:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? So now you're saying that the reason you messed up the review was that you were focused on trying to prove wrong a belief that I don't hold but you'd decided to ascribe to me? Wow.

How many other DYK reviews have you done? What was the focus of those? Something similar? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec, re Sandy) I wonder if it would help if the project regularly appointed a "director", something along the lines of what Raul is for TFA, who is expected to personally review all hooks before they go up? Right now the project has several experienced editors like Gatoclass, but they're not necessarily able to be involved all the time (or, like me, have more or less lost interest), and thus much of the grunt work is done by inexperienced editors, since DYK has a high turnover (it gets boring quickly). It might be better if there were someone who agreed to check every queue before it went up, for a year or something like that, and who knew that that was his/her responsibility. I think it would not actually be a huge job (assuming people get the queues prepared beforehand, the "director" could check all the queues once per day and just reject hooks that are inappropriate, without necessarily having to spend a whole lot of his/her own time trying to figure out how to fix them). Such a "director" should probably not be able to reject hooks based on boringness in this capacity (although he/she could still comment on boringness at T:TDYK like any other reviewer), since it's too subjective, but any experienced editor in this position would be able to keep hooks with, e.g., BLP problems from making it to the main page. (Catching plagiarism is a much bigger task, though, since it requires much more reading, and would be too much or one person to do on a daily basis like this.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have always advocated that DYK (and GA as well) should have some sort of directorate or clearing panel-- someone responsible when a debacle occurs. FAC put plagiarism on the mainpage once: I (we) did something about it. I would expect to be "fired" if we didn't. But I would strongly oppose putting Gatoclass in any position of DYK responsibility-- he doesn't see the issues, and didn't even a year or so ago. The notion that those of us who think DYK does a huge disservice to the main page are supposed to dig in and review, in a faulty process, is absurd. If I disagree with any corrupt, inept political system, does that mean I should join their party to change them from within? How silly. Those of you who participate here and know you are putting plagiarism, BLP vios, incorrectly sourced articles, and plagiarism on the mainpage are responsible to stop it. The problem seems to be that so many of the regulars here don't know verbatim copying and poor sourcing even when it's put right under their noses, hence have no business writing anywhere on Wikpedia, much less putting content on the mainpage. I haven't looked at the new proposals added here-- there are 144 posts since I last read here-- will go there next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): QPQ wasn't introduced to help with the backlog but to relieve the workload on the handful of users who were doing all the reviewing. And on that score, it's actually made a huge difference, there are currently 205 articles at T:TDYK and almost half of them are verified. Before QPQ, it was not unusual to have less than a dozen hooks verified - sometimes not even enough to create an update.

If a problem has arisen it is that those people who used to make the effort to do the reviewing have not used the extra time available to do other things at DYK - they've just cut the time they spend at DYK instead. Which means less oversight on the project overall. So I think it's premature to start talking about dumping QPQ. If we are going to make changes, IMO we should start by looking to improve the oversight at the Prep level. I suggested a method of doing so earlier, by making admins involved in moving updates from Prep to the Queue more accountable. Right now, the move is often treated as nothing more than a mechanical process instead of being also an editorial one. So if there's a perception that standards at DYK have slipped, I think that would be the place to start. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a combination of what Gato proposes here and what Tony proposes below would create a better sense of accountability. -- Khazar (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Two fold expansion

Would I get a two-fold expansion DYK credit if a 650-character article has one ref in the text but no refs needed BLP tags?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The two-fold expansion rule is for unreferenced BLPs. If it has one reference already, it does not quality. cmadler (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Prep areas need filling

I have nearly finished prep area 4 but really need to do stuff elsewhere. So folks, fill away...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Now to get an admin on commons to protect the prep images. Will ask posthaste. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just asked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nom deleted without discussion?

I assume this was an accident, but my nom, Wittorf affair under July 19 was deleted today (see diff) without any discussion. The edit summary says "need source" and although the edit summary says "Wittorf affair, the comment is made for the nom following it, Dorothy Reitman and Wittorf affair is simply deleted, section header and all. It being DYK, I would rather not just restore it myself and am not sure if that would be appropriate anyway. I would appreciate someone restoring the nom. Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that was an accident and tried to restore it, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Mitchell in queue 4

I'd like a second opinion on the Freddie Mitchell hook in queue 4. It asserts that Mitchell "received racially threatening hate mail in 2003, apparently due to his appearance on a reality television show, A Dating Story?" This doesn't sound correct linguistically. While the hate mail appears to have been "racially motivated," I don't think it's correct to call it "racially threatening." I think the word "racially" should be stricken, or changed to "racially motivated hate mail." Cbl62 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How about just "hate mail"? I don't really like these tabloid headline hooks, I have to say. There was another one at T:TDYK about some recent guy getting enslaved and beheaded. DYK is to motivate people to create new content for encyclopedia articles, and I'm not sure we achieve that by front-paging ugly trivia. Just off the top of my head here, but what do others think? Sharktopus ^talk 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd use a different hook altogether. It's a minor point in the article, and using it as a hook is not very sensitive to potential BLP concerns. --JN466 04:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: DYK quality assurance and archiving

Extensive discussion above shows that there are serious quality and policy-compliance problems in the current DYK process, and that many editors are concerned that plagiarism and close paraphrasing, sourcing issues, verification issues, copyvio, and wrong facts are regularly going through under the radar. This RfC is to determine whether there is consensus for two changes to the process as partial steps towards fixing these problems.

The RfC does not cover issues that might need to be resolved if one or both of the current proposals gains consensus. These include whether:

• there should be a directorate;
• nominators (after their fourth successful DYK) should still be required to review another editor's nomination when they nominate a DYK;
• a template should be created to provide for the explicit checking off of the explicit requirements listed in the first proposal, below; and
• the system of pasting in coloured ticks and crosses should be binned or modified.

Implicit in the proposals is the likelihood that the maximum four six-hour shifts per day of five to eight hooks (≥ 32 DYKs) will more often than now be altered by the queing admins to longer exposures and fewer shifts per day, and be treated as normal practice. This would not be necessary if there is a sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise. However, please note that the primary consideration of the two proposals is effective quality assurance and compliance with site-wide policies, not reduced flow.

Please respond under the proposals below with brief "support", "oppose", or "neutral" entries; longer comments may be made in the "Discussion" section underneath each proposal. Long comments in the !voting sections may be relocated to the related "Discussion" section.

RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist

Proposal: "No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
2. neutral point of view;
3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

• Support as proposer. Tony (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support as yet another proposal that I can't possibly see any sensible objection to. Long overdue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. These are all things a reviewer should be checking anyway, although they aren't yet required to "explicitly" say they did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I remember a checklist was brought up last year but not implemented. Copyvios are most common of problems to slip below the radar.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support - on reflection, I think I will support this, but only on the basis that QPQ is retained. We don't remotely have the manpower to check and fix absolutely every problem in every submission without QPQ. But I do think a requirement like this would help guide and remind reviewers of the issues they need to be checking. Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Any obvious errors should already be sounding warning bells in reviewers' heads. —Andrew_stalk 04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Rjanag. -- Khazar (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. per Rjanag - not sure of the reason for explicitly stating this unless it is to ensure that folks tick it off explicitly when reviewing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --JN466 04:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but with more specific minimum guidelines like those at GAN, specific to the problems critics see most often slipping through DYK. Quigley (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. DYK needs to be done more professionally, and this will help (so will reduced throughput, but that's another issue...) Sasata (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. DYK articles needn't be FA or even GA, but they should comply with minimum standards. Everything that appears on the main page should be work of which we can be proud.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Seems pretty motherhood and I agree. Seems like we should slim down and simplify the instructions. Points 1, 3, and 4 seem like same concept ("plagiarism" loosely defined.) Maybe just say "close paraphrasing". Mechanics will be tricky for offline content. Also, I think we need to be reasonable (even at FA it is a spotcheck, not a complete text search). (2) neutrality...sure...and maybe important given the Cirt kerfuffle. I think they try to do it, but put it in the checklist. (5) I think they already say that it needs to be half decent. Would be good to understand somehow what standard we are really looking for "halfway to GA"? GA quality? (even if not length?) I don't want to get legalistic, just want some better instruction as this could be no change or could be FA-lite. Also, I LOVE the idea of a checklist, but would want to add all the stuff they do now (the hook ref and one ref per para and allthat).TCO (reviews needed) 04:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. In general, the proposal requires a GA-level review. Is that what is meant? Remember that a 5x expansion may be quite large. A straight answer, please. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. N "adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy" for the whole article, every word? --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yneutral point of view; --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. Nplagiarism and close paraphrasing; OK re plagiarism. NO re close paraphrasing, which at present is a proposal, and needs refinement and wide wp:consensus, e.g. a widely advertised RfC of its own. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. (?) other copyright violations, in files and text; Please explain. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. Nobvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting." That is subjective, and WP history suggests that prose issues are contentious and that "prose experts" try to impose their own standards. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I share your "GA-Lite" concerns to some extent, but on reflection I think it does no harm to remind reviewers of the kinds of issues they should be looking out for. As Rjanag said, most of these points are things reviewers are supposed to be checking for in any case, so it shouldn't add an undue burden. And it will act as a guide to reviewers as well as promoting a greater sense of responsibility and accountability. Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The theory is okay, but to 100% verify all this stuff is a massive task. Combined with the automatic 7 day rule below this will just result in masses of DYK noms being deleted for no good reason other than they're out of time and no one has the time or inclination to fully check them out. We wait long enough for other editors to comment as it is. Far too bureacratic. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I very much support this, but how will this be handled unless the number of noms is decreased or number of reviewers increased? Or, I guess more precisely, how will this be enforced? Why aren't people doing this already?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I support the principle, but oppose in this form. This amounts to a WP:GA review, which is excessive for short new articles. I am not aware of recurring problems with DYK articles that would require this. Verifiability and neutrality are often controversial and cannot be properly determined except through a formal consensus-based discussion in the style of WP:FAC, which is not suited to the high volume of DYK articles. Our disclaimer states that we make no guarantee of validity or correctness, so readers will occasionally encounter suboptimal articles linked to on the main page, just like they will occasionally encounter deficient articles via Google. Moreover, "close paraphrasing" is an essay, so compliance with it cannnot be made mandatory. It is sufficient to check that the article does not contain clear copyright and BLP violations or clear formal faults, and does not obviously and indisputably violate important content policies such as V, NPOV and NOR.  Sandstein  10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't know why DYK produces frequent errors but I do know the main page isn't the place for repeat error. Lightmouse (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified oppose: I do not think that this would be most effective at review time, but when moving hooks from Prep to Queues. If the proposal were for that, I would vote support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Rjanag, Cas, Sasata, and Will Beback. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• weak support wholesale radical change is necessary instead of tinkering; does not go far enough, but is better than nothing. --88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully this will promote consistency in the quality of DYKs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I too often get the feeling that DYKs are just getting rubber-stamped. This will ensure some minimal standards for what appears on the main page. And it's not as demanding for reviewers as it sounds; some source spot-checks and a quick look through the article and reference list, and you're done. Only suggestion is to merge points 3 and 4, since they cover similar territory. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is about being a useful encyclopedia, not an easy way for editors to rack up DYKs. This proposal simply asks that things be done, that should always be done as a matter of common sense. I appreciate that it may make it harder to move nominations through the pipeline. So be it. I would have no objection to extending the amount of time a nomination can wait for review if need be, and extending the amount of time after page expansion. Newness of the content really isn't that important. I would also have no objection to simply having fewer DYKs on the main page, so long as those that do appear are well vetted, if it comes to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support for a very lightweight process. See the discussion section for more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - It is risky to be putting material from brand new articles up on the front page. I think it would be wiser to shift the DYK emphasis from new articles, to more mature articles that are GA quality. Here's an idea: why not make DYK a follow-on process to achieving GA status? Thus, focus would shift to the GA process, and DYKs would be a natural by-product of that. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that another editor had a similar proposal (great minds think alike :-) down below in this Talk page here. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support the idea of a clear checklist in principle, but weak oppose this specific proposal due to concerns about the wording (especially #5), per Philcha. cmadler (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Hopefully this will help establish a minimum standard. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - any article that is pointed to on the main page should pass some basic quality control and checking process to see that meet our core policies. That process does not need to be as intensive as a FA review... but it has to be done. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It is our explicit policy that our articles may be imperfect. Articles which appear on the main page do not need to be held to a higher standard because their placement on the main page will expose them to the gaze of many readers and this process will tend to flush out any remaining problems with the article. This provides a good opportunity to encourage participation in the editing process and and so improve, not just the articles in question, but all the other neglected articles too, as readers are drawn in to the editing process. To facilitate this, a disclaimer which openly disavows any claim of perfection and invites such participation might be useful. A list of bureaucratic rules would not be a good alternative as it would tend to discourage participation, contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obvious, basic, common sense. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is really a no-brainer. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - any article that is pointed to on the main page should pass some basic quality control and checking process to see that meet our core policies. That process does not need to be as intensive as a FA review... but it has to be done. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3 and 4 only. NPOV and spelling/grammar are obviously important. That said, our standards for these things apply to all articles, and to require an explicit check for these things is to require GA standards. I'm on board with the idea of reviewing for obvious bias, but a proper check for NPOV can only be done by a relative expert. If we miss some field-specific bias, is that such a bad thing? Bias can often be a motivational tool. Equally, I'm on board with the idea of ensuring that there are no glaring spelling or grammer errors, but urge the community not to go as far as to bar non-FA writers from getting involved. —WFC— 23:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support as a first step. Many of us, myself included, have questioned the DYK nominations of User:Billy Hathorn, most of which are thin on notable and/or interesting material (a lot of DYKs on obscure and fairly boring local legislators). See here, where I reviewed a Billy Hathorn DYK about a Louisiana state rep. and shot down a weird and not particularly notable hook about the state rep 'gator hunting. The ALT hook he gave me was similarly thin on notability, but unlike the gator huntin' hook didn't appear to poke any "WTF buttons" and the article solidly met the DYK criteria (new date and length, etc) so I felt compelled to pass it[11]. Listen carefully, existing DYK criteria compels us to pass boring-as-sin hooks thin on notability! Creating a new DYK checklist to address the criteria problem is an important first step, but the problem is bigger: we're incentivizing quantity and newness above all, not quality content, and the result is weak articles on the front page. Yes DYK should be overhauled, and Jimmy Wales' proposal for DYK Reform should be heard; it's the best approach I've seen so far. No, this isn't an idiotic Jimbo said... argument ("Argumentum ad Jimbonem"). The principles outlined here should merit a look whether a newb with an I.P. or an ol' wikipedia gray beard brought them up. NickDupree (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If you -- or any other editors -- notice a non-notable article at DYK, the appropriate solution is generally to go through a PROD/AfD process; any DYK appearance will be held pending the outcome of such a discussion, and of course it will not be used if the article is deleted. cmadler (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While well-intentioned, I agree with those who say this will massively bog down an already bogged down process. Look at how back logged the noms page is now. This essentially requires GA=level new articles which is not truly what is wanted. What is wanted is better quality DYKs.This can be achieved without this heavy handed change of process. We need a scaled down version of this proposal.PumpkinSky talk 20:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Providing DYK remains relevant for new articles and contines to have access to the Main Page. The bar is being raised higher for quality of DYK articles. While this will dissuade some editors, I see this as a sign of the times to come. There appears to be no other way to meaningfully improve quality of DYK articles without fundamentally changing the nature of the process. Editors will just have to learn better editting. AshLin (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with a condition: that we be clearer as to what sourcing is adequate. On the one hand, we clearly ought not to accept full-length articles where only the hook assertion is sourced. On the other, I don't think a missing citation on a fact elsewhere in the article, utterly unrelated to the hook fact or facts, should be a dealbreaker. Part of the point of DYK is that new articles are works in progress, and perceiving that is what drew me (and, I suspect, many others) to contribute in the first place. When I see IPs or newer editors having at least cleaned up my typos in a DYK, I am gratified. If we required a GA-level review, what's the point of having a separate DYK process? Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. It's the bare minimum if you want front page exposure. This should be extended to WP:OTD and WP:ITN. If you can't find something of this standard for your front page column, leave it blank. I'm all for including articles of any age in DYK, and the criteria should be GA and interesting hook. Sorry. The existing criteria incentivise pulp, and the existing scrutiny leaves it wide open for being gamed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support: not sure I agree with this exact check list but the DYK system could use some checks and balances for sure. Dzlife (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support These are reasonable standards of quality that every article should have anyways. We're not looking for GAs here, either in length or in level of polish, but that's not what's being asked for here. As for the complaint about the amount of time it would take, I find that to be a sad and shallow argument at best. If something is not worth doing right, it should not be done at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support in general, but I'd like to know what's meant by "explicit." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DF, this is now being rolled out. Your feedback is welcome. Tony (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some tightening of the rules regarding content quality at DYK is needed, but this proposal takes it way too far. In particular, the "close paraphrasing"/"plagiarism" thing is a red herring - those kinds of checks are de facto not required even for the GA process; certainly other kinds of items that go to the main page, such as ITN and "On this day" items do not undergo anything even close in terms of the required checks, and, as far as I know, the sky is not falling. It is actually not falling w.r. to DYK either. The effect of this proposal would be to impose undue burden on the volunteers who check the DYK entries (as mentioned by others above, there is already a shortage of them anyway) and likely to effectively kill DYK altogether. Perhaps some people would be happy about that, but if so, they should be honest about it and just propose killing DYK as a section of the main page. Nsk92 (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose if mandatory, good as a guideline,try to keep things simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about "proper checklist" proposal

Long posts in the !voting section above may be relocated here.

• Comment - I think this RFC should be pulled, it's a fishing expedition that is proposing outcomes rather than solutions. We need to stay focussed on improving the project, all this RFC is likely to do is give DYK critics a venue for sounding off without addressing any of the actual problems. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Changed my mind about this, and submitted a !vote with comment above. Gatoclass (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• @Tony1 - I guess what you're getting at here is that the reviewer should explicitly state that they've reviewed these issues, in which case it should be in a proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Response to Cas: Indeed, but I should point out that it wasn't my intention to propose that every reviewer should have to tick off on every aspect. Specialist reviewers should be encouraged, IMO. Tony (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

    • KISS. Better to just have one person run through the whole thing. We don't want to duplicate FA and/or have all kinds of moving parts (shared checklist pages and the like). Sure. some people will be better at one task than the other, but it will drive learning anyway. We ALL need to learn more about looking for close paraphrasing. Mottenen is only one person. Making everyone do it, will raise the level of community knowledge and over time the standards of the project as a whole.TCO (reviews needed) 05:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't know diddley-squat about which pop-music or sporting sites are reliable and which aren't; nor do I know much about image copyright and checking for plagiarism and close paraphrasing (some people do; maybe we need a pointer to the how-to-do-it pages); and many reviewers won't feel they are equipped to review prose, formatting and structure. That's why we should all be grateful if an editor is willing to zap through a tranche of DYK noms using their specialist knowledge of these matters. What distinguishes DYK noms from FACs is their size and, usually, lack of comprehensiveness; and I suppose there's more acceptance of less-than-perfect prose and a few other areas (but not obvious glitches, please). Tony (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
        • As long as I'm not doing much subject matter expertise and just looking for common sense inconsistencies, than I can review a new article on anything. (I would expect more for FA, we don't do enough subject matter and coverage consideration there. but here? Nah. I can review anything.) We don't have infinite resources, Tony. How much time and manpower do you think will do a review. Then moving parts and coordination? And now you have a 7 day limit on it? KISS, baby. You can learn the basics of image copyright just by writing a few articles and having some deletions come up of your own. All you do is go to the file page and check the source and look for obvious inconsistencies. Or just do a few reviews and figure it out. Or read what someone else says. It won't be CLindburg/Dcoetze quality, but we only have a few of them and need to do some work ourselves. It doesn't need to be a nuclear assurance. Just a second screen and then move the thing along the path. We don't have infinite experts on call. Rather move along with something workmanlike than develop intricate dependencies.TCO (reviews needed) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What does "obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting" mean, exactly? I am concerned about the potential for standards creep here, in part because I see DYK as having an article incubation/improvement role. Because any article featured on DYK pulls in so many eyeballs, there are certain things like unsourced/ill-sourced BLP and copyvio and plagiarism that should never appear in such an article. On the other hand, I think an article that lacks completeness, for instance, should remain a DYK candidate, in part because the exposure at DYK might pull in the right person to complete it. The checklist should forbid such things as a policy-conscious editor would never put in mainspace, but should permit usages that might be left for later development. Choess (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the interpretation could probably be left up to the individual reviewer, not everybody has the same notion of what constitutes an unacceptable flaw but if some reviewers want to take a harder line over such matters, it's not such a big deal. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this one as well. Out of the whole list it's the least important and arbitrary. The key word in there is obviously "obvious" but I'm guessing most reviewers won't pay attention to that. I'd hate to see a good DYK nom turned down because, for example, someone didn't use citation templates or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

When noms are turned down, they are usually turned down by consensus not by a single user, so I see little prospect of this occurring in practice. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought about this some more and it's probably OK. Given the volume of material to review (even with a throttling back of DYK, which I'd favor), I doubt many people are going to go over the top in DYK reviews over trivial MOS issues (and if they do, they'd be making trouble somewhere else on the 'pedia if they weren't at DYK). Choess (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• One of the problems with greater scrutiny like this is that to fix some of the issues will require an extensive rewrite of the article. What happens to articles that get rejected, but the nominator doesn't fix? Does the reviewer then have to find the time to rewrite and fix the article? Articles with this level of problems should be picked up earlier by another process, or get sent somewhere else for fixing. The few times I've reviewed articles for DYK, I've found myself thinking "this article is poor", and the temptation was great to go find another article to review that was of a better quality. It would be very liberating to be able to say "this article is not good enough", to give a list of reasons, and then reject it, and list it somewhere where it would get fixed. But it would be very depressing to see no follow-up to that and no fixes made to the article. What might help is some examples of articles at different stages of development, with indications of where minimum standards have been met, maybe even with specific diffs that show the correction of particular problems. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see how you could solve the issue without far more resources than we have available. Yes, it's too bad, but as long as it's properly templated with caveats for the reader and the review on the talk page indicates, to some extent, what went wrong, we've given as much as we can to a person who does want to fix it. An article improvement program to keep people from committing mortal sins like plagiarism etc. is interesting but beyond the scope of DYK. Choess (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Checking for plagiarism and copyvios should be easier using the Duplication Detector. MER-C 13:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• One thing we can be sure of is that there will be no "sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise". Did You Know has always had more than enough people to demand error correction, and not enough to do it. Every added procedure, subprocedure and exception (especially the unwritten ones) will detract from time to actually fix anything, not add to it.Art LaPella (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I support only a very lightweight process - the check should only be for obvious cases and not a "GA-light". "Prose issues" should be limited to checking that it is of at least "adequate clarity" (to use the feedback tool's terminology); similarly the NPOV should just check that there is "no obvious bias", and the sourcing should just require that the portion being used is supported by "adequate reliable sources" and the rest of the article has at least some reliable sources. Any reviewer should be able to determine whether the criteria are met in about 2-5 minutes for most short and medium length articles. Plagiarism and close paraphrasing checks should only search for the obvious cases unless there are explicitly raised concerns or the initial check warrants further investigation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Question Will nominators have a chance to fix any of the above issues should they appear in the article, or will the DYK nomination be promptly removed basically saying "fix it and submit again?" I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nevermind, just read the below discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC proposal: archive unsuccessful nominations after seven days

Proposal: "A nomination that has not met the requirements seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer¹ should be declined and archived, unless an administrator involved in DYK queuing grants an application for an extension of a specified number of days. Time limits include time spent in a preparation area."

¹Or a similar arrangement decided on by editors at DYK, such as a template expiry date.

There has never been a clear process for removing from the "suggestions" page nominations that have not reached acceptable standards. This is essential if compliance with site policies and other standards are to be upheld in DYKs on the main page. Expecting the queuing admins to tip-toe around removing the odd bum nomination is hardly a professional procedure. A professional DYK process involves rejection as well as passing, and the nominations page needs to be kept under control by the admins.

• Support as proposer. Tony (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support tentatively. I have also flirted with this idea (although in response to a different problem--hook boringness) at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#What is DYK for? (long, sry) and User talk:Rjanag/Archive5#Inquiring minds want to know. I have a lot of concerns about the details of how it would work (see those links and the discussion below) but in spirit I think it's the right move. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support this would probably help to move along some of the nominations that develop lengthy and largely unproductive discussions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent idea. -- Khazar (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. yes, long tails on the suggestion queue are somewhat distracting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support There will be articles that are sent to AfD and kept after the seven day period has ended, but I suppose a few casualties isn't a huge issue. —Andrew_stalk 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Hooks should be well-prepared, interesting, and inviting to reviewers from the start. Quigley (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Increases efficiency. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If standards for DYK articles are increased then some streamlining will be necessary. While some last minute fixes for new articles may be needed, DYK is not an article nursery.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Sure. This will ease the stress for the whole infrastructure and give a bit of a kick in the ass to weaker submitters.TCO (reviews needed) 05:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with Tony's last change (otherwise, no). I'm thinking there will need to be a special page made with instructions for reviewers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support It needs to be changed to a week that a reviewer's comment has remained unanswered - a point raised by Gatoclass below, support if that is actually the proposal. Mikenorton (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Due process requires criteria to be enforced. Lightmouse (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified Support: Not 7 days since the first review, but 7 days since the last comment. Some require major discussion, like the Children of the Stork hook at T:TDYK right now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support incorporating Tony's change of 03:51, 23 July 2011 --88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with the changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Wouldn't support removing noms that are completely unreviewed, but if there are important comments that go unaddressed for a week, a nomination should be failed. I wonder why this isn't in the rules now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support 7 days after reviewer edit. I would expect the DYK admins to check that concerns have been addressed, if the nominator has responded to say that they are fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I just saw the backlog for the first time a little while ago, and I couldn't believe it. This sounds like a fair solution. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I can support this as written, but I would also suggest that nominations that have not yet been reviewed should in fact be given more time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I generally agree with this in principle -- in fact, I've frequently enforced such a rule myself -- but disagree with the specific wording. I'd suggest that if an issue raised by a reviewer hasn't garnered a good-faith response within 7 days of notification, the nomination is dead. Problems with the proposed wording include the following: some reviews involve extensive back-and-forth between nominator and reviewer(s) which can go beyond 7 days, time spent in a prep area should not be counted (since that comes after approval), and the clock should start with notification to the nominator. cmadler (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. DYK isn't an entitlement, nor is it Wikipedia:Peer review. Perhaps my memory is going, but back in the old days of DYK I seem to remember that one couldn't expect to get DYK as a matter of course, due to more submissions than slots. I think re-instilling this attitude would be a good thing. Choess (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, although a little iffy on the wording. Per NW in the discussion area below, what is "Time limits include time spent in a preparation area"?
• Oppose - since no-one has responded to my concerns below, I can only conclude that there is no credible response to those concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would make it very difficult to get serious subjects (e.g. science) into the DYP Main Page, so that DYK would contain only popular culture. --Philcha (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support This may help to ensure that the hooks are more interesting. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about "archiving unsuccessful nominations" proposal

Long posts in the !voting section above may be relocated here.

Does this mean that if a nominator nominates their article on 1st August, and no-one has gotten round to reviewing it by 8th August, then the nomination fails? I'm assuming not, but this needs to be clearer...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it does mean that; that is how I'm understanding it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This may be hard to keep track of, given that for example an article may be nominated on August 5 but placed under the August 1 header (if that was the date it was actually created). The way the proposal is currently written, this nom would expire on August 12 (7 days after nomination), not August 8 (7 days after the header under which it's included). I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong, just that it might be a pain to keep track of (although I suppose people could just remove old noms whenever they happen to notice one, without necessarily needing a system to remove all new old noms at once). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these points: I've boldly changed "seven days after nomination" to "seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer". Does this resolve the problem? Tony (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Actually, it would probably be easy to work in something in the template that says "this nomination expires on DATE", similar to image speedy deletion templates. After that, we could just have an understanding that any editor is free to archive any nomination with an expired date. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks: I've added a footnote above to this effect. This kind of flexibility in the mechanics is good: the principle of time limitation is the main concern of this second RfC proposal. Tony (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The problem is that on some occasions, I have placed science-oriented DYK nominations with few/no problems of the kind mentioned above which took longer than 7 days to find a reviewer. Yet when they were finally checked by a reviewer at archive time, they were good to go and made it without remark to the main page. Certain classes of articles which people may shy away from are likely to be discriminated. AshLin (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I've had your problem before also, so this concerned me, too. But if I understand right, Tony's just modified it to now count off seven days after review rather than nomination (which sounds fair to me). -- Khazar (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more impractical it sounds. What happens if someone reviews a hook, the nominator responds and then no-one gets around to having another look for a week? Is that the nominator's fault? Of course not. But under this system, his nom will be deleted unless an admin gives it a reprieve. But do we really want to have nominators running around pestering admins for extra time? IMO it would make more sense for a nom to be deleted if the nominator hasn't responded to a concern within a set period. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In practice, I would hope that those archiving/closing/promoting older nominations would look at the discussions and make a judgment on whether more discussion is needed, or whether archiving/closing/promotion is needed. Effectively, the proposal is asking for a decision to be taken within 7 days of the review starting (though the decision could be to extend the discussion period). This sounds reasonable to me, and is a lot like how AfD works. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, we already do remove noms if a nominator hasn't responded to a concern in a while, although there is no official time period. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do, but as you say there is no set time period, I think if we made it five days, or even three days, it would help get rid of those lingering noms. Other than that, I can see this proposal creating more problems than it solves, because there are going to be disputes about whether or not a nom should have been given more time, and there is also the possibility of factions gaming the system to delay a nom until it gets deleted. A system that relies on the continued attention of the nominator, on the other hand, places the responsibility on the shoulders of the person most involved, and if he fails to stay abreast of the discussion, he has no-one to blame but himself when the nom is deleted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Five days would be best, methinks. Three would be cutting it too close, especially since some Wikipedians take the weekends off. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And some Wikipedians work in the week and edit at the weekends... Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone clarify what "Time limits include time spent in a preparation area." means? Does that mean if I ask for some improvements on 00:00 5 August which are finished by 12:00 11 August, the article is ineligible to go up because it will take longer than 12 hours to move through Template:Did you know/Queue? NW (Talk) 18:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes: at the moment, it's perfectly acceptable for an article to be moved out of a prep room and back onto the nom page if someone picks up a problem that can't be quickly resolved. The inclusion of time spent in a prep room is to forestall anyone who might try to game the system by moving a nom to a prep room, then to have it moved back after a problem is discovered and start the seven-day limit ticking over from zero again. Tony (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
    • We might be talking at cross purposes. Say we have the following hook: "... Y. pestis is a deadly disease that is very likely to kill you if you become infected?" I nominate it for DYK on 00:00 5 August, and it is approved by 18:00 8 August. However, before it can be added to the prep area, on 00:00 9 August, a Wikipedia who is also a virologist takes offense at my poor efforts and declares that he is going to turn the article into GA-quality or better. The hook is not moved to the prep areas to give the virologist some time to write such a major addition. The virologist works very quickly, and by 18:00 13 August, everything is good. But when an administrator goes to add the hook to the prep area, he or she discovers that queues 1 to 6 as well as prep areas 1 to 2 are filled with hooks. It will take far more than the 30 hours remaining for those hooks to cycle through. Do we simply reject the Y. pestis hook then? NW (Talk) 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support since I don't this find any different from declining an unblock request from someone who hasn't responded to {{coiq}} or some other query within two or three days. It would help, I think, to place these in a special section so that anyone could fix the issues (Not that they can't now, but it's easier when these are in a special section). Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support seven days after review. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC question: has the obligation to review been a net positive or negative?

This is a question for DYK regulars - has the introduction of the obligation to review (i.e. QPQ) been a net positive or negative? I'm not sure myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

net positive

1. I think it's a major net positive but I think it's becoming clear it needs some refinement. Specifying the issues that reviewers need to be checking as in the first proposal above is a step in the right direction, but we may need to add some further checks. I would strongly oppose any attempt to scrap QPQ ATM, there are plenty of other things we can try first and going back to the old system of relying on a handful of reviewers would be a last resort in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I think it's been good to have so many more people doing it, even if some of us do it imperfectly on occasion. I don't mind having "experts" double-check reviews (especially if we someday reduce the number of articles reaching the main page), but I want to keep the diversity of reviewers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Pros: encouragement of collaboration, learning DYK and WP policies and reviewing process, provision of some review. Cons: sloppy reviews. Solution: cover up, check the reviews and provide additional ones. Hook promoter is the key person in the current DYK scheme, and most proposals should be focused here, for example: (i) formally disallow promoting hooks to any editor who hasn't reviewed xx noms in their lifetime (unfortunately, we don't count reviews; but with the QPQ system, reviewed=submitted, and this we do count at stats pages, thus 50 or 100 successful DYKs may do). (ii) keep the whole review thread in the prep so that the promoting admin could check the promotion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Net positive. Reviewing DYKs made me familiar with rules especially in those areas where I normally dont edit such as BLP. It made me a better and more confident DYK nominator. AshLin (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
5. What if we required two editors to green-light a hook before it is sent to prep? That would still be faster than having a handful of editors doing all the (tedious) work. —Andrew_stalk 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Positive, but with room for improvements. I like Tony's comment done in the discussion section that an extra aspect of the article could be checked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Small positive. At the time it was implemented, there was discussion about possibly requiring approval from two reviewers; it may be time to revisit that idea. cmadler (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
8. We have no shortage of reviews now, I've enjoyed that. But I would like to see more oversight in that reviews are regularly checked to ensure that people are not simply rubber-stamping to pass the "must review a nom to submit a nom" requirement. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
9. The rule came into effect at about the same time that I was making my fifth DYK anyway. I would never have reveiewed other nominations without the rule, because I didn't consider myself a "regular", but after having done a bunch of reviews I really don't mind doing them at all, and might even be persuaded to do a few extra reviews next time around. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
10. It's a close one, I agree, but I think that encouraging editors, particularly newer ones, to review is essential to making them part of the community—after all, we're here to edit and encyclopedia, not just write one. I agree that sometimes a reviewer will be ill-suited to an article ... but that's always been likely, and frankly I think most reviewers, particularly newer ones (and some veterans) go for the low-hanging fruit anyway. Looking over the noms page, I don't see any less discussion than we used to have.

    If anything, problems like the Carmody hook are less the result of newer reviewers and more the result of less human hands and eyes going over them than there used to be ... in the days when every step of the process was manual, there was more chance of a problematic hook at least being rewritten before going on the main page. It's a common effect of moving to more automation. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

11. I agree with Daniel Case that getting nominators to review brings them into the community. At least, that was how it worked for me. New reviewers are not as capable as experienced ones, nor are careless reviewers as good as people who take care. QpQ motivates some careless inexpert reviews but it has also motivated a lot of people to learn how to become good reviewers. Sharktopus ^talk 01:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

net negative

1. While I do not think that everything about the QPQ turned out bad, I believe "net negative" is the right description. Those are my main concerns:
   • First in line of course is the entirely subjective observation that there are more unsatisfying reviews than before. And as it is not visible who is new and who is experienced, you just cannot trust the DYK tick symbols anymore.
   • Less obvious but maybe even more important is the situation that the average reviewer is not as bold as before. Every once in a while a review should start with or if the problems are many, or if they cover the entire article---not just for purely numerical concerns about length.
   • Thirdly, particularly due to DYK's quality problems I believe it is the wrong place to learn Wikipedia rules, or how to review. I think WP:Peer Review is a much better place to do that, but one might also think of specific adoptions or a particular lesson in WP:Tutorial.
   • From a pure project management point of view, I think there is little doubt that reviews are at least not better than before. But the process has become more difficult. To me, this is added complexity without benefit.
   • Finally, I never liked the idea to force anyone to do voluntary work. I know of at least one very prolific DYK writer whose creations often get GA status before DYK, and who does not edit T:TDYK anymore. In this respect, DYK currently is stricter than GA and FAC, and that is not a healthy thing. --Pgallert (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Gatoclass raises good points at #Some thoughts from a semi-regular and the section above this one. Overall, though, I still think requiring reviews from new editors who aren't interested in reviewing is a net negative. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
3. I think that the inherent conflict of interest may be too strong. Since I started reviewing in May, I have come across quite a few with serious prose or other issues. While many serious reviewers at work, there also seems to me to be a certain 'going through the motions' with reviewing and commenting on the bare minimum criteria. I suspect some reviewers may be afraid of ruffling feathers when their own articles are under review for fear of 'retaliatory' fails, and I suspect that the conflict of interest may be a contributing factor to mediocrity of reviewing. --88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 15:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

   I would suggest perhaps that the requirement be changed, so that each article has had at least two independent pairs of eyes; reviewers would be expected to expressly state the work done – which must be to a higher standard than is at present – to ensure comprehensiveness/completeness. Those articles that do not secure the two obligatory reviews in the period required will fall by the wayside for lack of interest. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

4. Someone asked below if this view could be articulated. Let me try. Even when this was being proposed, I knew it would be a problem in the long run, but anyone who said that risked being seen as just trying to avoid doing the work. So I mistakenly held my tongue. The problem was and is obvious: requiring everybody to review means that there are many weaker reviewers who need to look at something so their articles can be approved. They either haven't yet acquired the skills to review something properly, or just rubber-stamp something to get it over with. Hence why so many crappy articles have been making it through lately. For someone like me, a regular reviewer elsewhere, I can handle such a requirement comfortably. But this isn't necessarily true for everyone. I think there was an assumption that DYK writers would grow into strong reviewers over time, but it just isn't happening. The best thing that could happen to DYK is to remove this requirement and leave reviewing to those who are interested and experienced. It may take longer to get articles through, but it will be worth it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Wholly negative. DYK has systemic problems in sourcing, copyvio, and BLP vios, and is populated by numerous editors who don't know, understand or respect Wikipedia policies. The Quid Pro Quo reviewing amounts to the blind leading the blind, and has allowed DYK to continue enabling and encouraging editors who do not know or understand Wikipedia policies. Accountability and lower turnover of faulty content on the mainpage was needed and called for years ago: QPQ reviewing provided the opposite, allowing the buck to be passed to any ole' editor who wants mainpage exposure, regardless of their knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and allowing DYK to continue pushing through volumes of faulty content being created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
6. It's good to encourage reviewing, but it's bad to encourage "drive by" reviewing which this pretty much is. I've been found guilty of this recently, for which I am ashamed (a failure to speak a foreign language was part of the problem) but it's symptomatic, the "you scratch my DYK, I'll scratch yours..." approach. It's pretty weak in quality control. Generally, hooks are reviewed, if you're lucky, hook references are reviewed for verifiability and reliability, but beyond that, the rest of the article could be nonsense. Not to mention the copyvio issues which barely crosses most reviewers' minds... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
7. If you're asking me to review for neutrality, I will either play it safe by reviewing what I know (sport), or I will pick something obscure yet interesting, and more likely than not get it badly wrong, as I have done on at least two occasions. Either way, it's a bad thing, and for those reasons alone the current system of reciprocal reviews should be gotten rid of. I would also point out that the three editors above are directors in processes that are constantly crying out for reviewers, and who will have thought long and hard about the merits of bringing in a similar arrangement at those processes. —WFC— TFL notices 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

discussion

• I have no objection to requiring nominators to do a bit of character-counting and examining of page histories as clerical verification of eligibility. But in the interests of making DYK a bit more of a training ground, I'd be inclined to add a requirement that in addition, they review at least one other point, of their choice, listed in the first RfC proposal. Tony (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I can't answer as I'm not a DYK regular. But I really like the idea and have debated this with Sandy before and been pretty unsatisfied with the responses. Working scientists who write papers, review them also (not tit for tat, but regularly). I think if someone can write a capable article, he can review one. And I sure get sick of the "build it and it will come" hope that reviewers will descend out of the sky or the begging for more reviewers on FAC talk (or articles not progressing because no one reviewed it). Plus it's fair giveback for people burdening the sytsem. Plus reviewing teaches you things that help with writing! And I think the concerns over poor reviewers are over-rated. We need to use what we have. This is not nuclear code security carefulness...this is content creation...let's get on with it. TCO (reviews needed) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the above comments by TCO. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The other thing is it makes even MORE sense that required reviews make sense at FAC since anyone who can write one of those mofos can more than review one. And one could do an analysis...there are some areas where we are close to tit for tat anyway just in terms of the smallness of the group. Perhaps requiring more reviews would broaden things up. Some times I think people here get entrenched positions from years ago and don't really have an open mind. Like...look GA has done fine with a little plus sign...and that was a big kerfuffle where FA didn't want to allow it. Or like the way the FA reviews are all on one gigantic megapage (no academic journal runs that way) which makes it painful for everuyone other than the scanning director (and prevents getting substantive discussions, like in an academic review.) (No drama/teasing, honest...just my newbie perspective.)TCO (reviews needed) 17:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to see someone articulate the "net negative" position. I see some folks in other discussions above say "this has been a failure" but I'm not quite clear on why this is so. And pointing out that during the time that this has been in effect a couple of bad noms slipped through is not sufficient - DYK has come under more and more scrutiny over time so we really don't know how many bad noms slipped through before the implementation of this feature.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sure someone will; the big negative to me is that it has enabled the system to deceive itself that proper reviewing is occurring, beyond the merely clerical minima. We should want to augment it, not remove it, I believe. Tony (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • One of the problems with reviewing in general (not QPQ) is that reviewing can be silent. If people actually put a tick on a checklist, it tells others what got checked. Though you do want some thing double-checked as well, as some aspects need more than one person for a proper check. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It also increases accountability, people can't say "I forgot to check that" or "I didn't know I was expected to do that". They will have to take responsibility for their errors. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So are we going to implement the checklist, as suggested here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming this proposal achieves consensus, yes, that would be the sort of system I would envisage. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page

My feeling on this is that we should replace did you know of new articles on the main page with did you knows of recently passed good articles. Then I would have a link underneath like in the featured article section, more DYKs of recently created/expanded articles and then I'd demote the DYK for newly expanded article as it currently appears on the main page to a sub page. This way it gives credit to those who've recently had a good article promotion, general quality on the main page would be much improved without obvious blunders and the often embarrassing did you knows would appear on a sub page and be hidden from appearing on the main page. Given that we just don't have the numbers to ensure the quality hitting the main page is universal the only solution to deal with this problem in my view is to simply stop it from doing so. The problem is we can't paint all DYKs with the same brush. There are some very good DYKs which are new GAs anyway which I've seen today, but to keep that sort of level for every entry would be great in my view. Maybe I'm biased I don't know but the deal with DYKs for me has never been an excitement about it appearing on the main page so I could accept that the current system could be demoted to a sub page and replaced with GA DYKs. The problem is how to accommodate those editors who enjoy creating start class articles and having their articles appear on the front page and to retain the system that motivates them to expand content. I myself would be perfectly happy to see my did you know hooks appearing on a sub page of the main page as page views illustrate a small percentage actually view them anyway.

What I propose is a nicely designed sub page for new hook DYKs rather like User:Gerda Arendt's user page (but tidier in format) linked from the main page and for every hook if possible to have an image by the side and to include more hooks in the list. It would alleviate the pressure and some of the negative comments associated with the main page. Every hook created on a certain day would be listed on this sub page for 24 hours maybe with a 5 day approval period leading up to it. So any proposed and authorised article created today would appear on this list on 28 July and be listed for 24 hours with all others created/expanded on that day. Any which have not been approved within that time period because of issues will be scrapped. This would easy the pressure on those who have to regularly update the main page with new hooks, editors would see their new DYKs featured for much longer than the measly few hours at present and many of the beautiful images which would not appear on the front page because they are not the top entry there would be room to list them all. We could also give it a major revamp and organize DYKs on a page by topic like geography, sport, history, wildlife etc with many colorful images and themes, have thematic days and collaborative drives on certain topic to produce a combined input on any given topic as well as the usual mix and mash we have to make it more enjoyable and challenging. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. DYK is heavily biased towards promoting the mass creation of content in obscure areas, with minimal quality control. Promote good editing, not fast editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support—nice one, Dr. Blofeld, and Mkativerata sums it up well. I'd also support drawing on GAs, FAs, and FLs. DYKs must be from content that contains an interesting, catchy, punchy hook in the first place, and as SandyGeorgia has pointed out, it can easily become forced if you're not selective (the cheap hook). A good proportion of articles at whatever stage or status are just not DYKable, something that has plagued the current DYK model. So changing the scope so it's classier and broader makes a lot of sense—solves a bunch of problems in one go. Everyone knows I'm not a Jimbo groupie, but he has just injected a fresh view with the benefit of distance from the process, having moved from a position of supporting solely FAs as DYKs earlier today. Tony (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose to this perennial proposal, for all of the same reasons every time this is brought up. Since it's the same small group proposing this over and over, hoping it will eventually stick or wear down the regulars, I feel no obligation to repeat myself for the umpteenth time. If there is a burning need to display not-good-enough-to-be-FA content on the Main Page, propose a new section for GAs without targeting a useful extant project like DYK for destruction. - Dravecky (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say DYK would be destroyed. To accommodate those who enjoy contributing new articles for DYK and being credited I think that it should be kept but demoted to a sub page, if anything it could be a big page of hooks just like the DYK nom page is right for those who are interested in viewing new articles. But I believe that articles which have been shown to be poorly reviewed and many containing a plethora of problems are not front page worthy even if for just a few hours. I believe the front page should be reserved solely for the cream of wikipedia. We need to clean up our act and deal with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of speling the death-knell of DYK, this proposal could be the beginning of a brilliant future of DYK, in the form of a DYK portal linked to from the main page and other portals and templates; it will be a portal where content can be displayed in full glory, instead of one-line hooks, images and other embellishments will be permitted. I see repeated mentions that DYK isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, but this seems to be denial of the problems that Sandy and many others have clearly identified and elaborated on; supporters have not come up with satisfactory answers nor ways of dealing with the issues, which continue to recur on a regular basis; they therefor feel like they are being bludgeoned by repeated retabling of similar proposals. That is the real reason that this proposal is perennial; it's not the fault of the proposers. 88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support This proposal would see a measurable improvement in the content of the main page, and show readers (and potential contributors) what writers should be aiming for. Nev1 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Most of what is used in DYK could never reach GA simply because the sources aren't there. If we were to limit DYK to GAs, systemic bias would rear its ugly head immediately; if FAs, FLs, and GAs, we'd be invading on TFA and TFL's turf, which could theoretically cause major conflict. This is not the way to improve DYK. Quality control may need to be improved, but not to GA-level standards; GA length alone would preclude many otherwise sound DYKs from reaching the main page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read the proposal? I have not proposed to scrap new article/expanded DYK. Rather to keep them off the main age when they are often poorly reviewed and reserve the main page purely for reviewed material. As I've said there could be a direct link from the main page for new DYK articles on a smart looking sub page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I did read the proposal, but a sub-page is not the main page itself. We'd be expecting interested readers to click on one link to open the subpage, then another to choose the article they want to read. Effectively, we'd lose around 50 to 80% of our readership. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I like the multicultural flavour of DYK, written by many for whom English is a second language, covering a broad range of interests. I don't envision that quality for GAs. The opposite might work: have a subpage on GAs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it too, but is it really a good idea to have poorly reviewed material with problems hitting the main page in the eyes of millions on a daily basis?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The "millions" would only see the hook. Less than 100k would actually have any exposure to the sub-par articles themselves. As for Gerda's idea, I'd support such a motion. A mix of new DYKs and recently promoted GAs may be acceptable too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I fail to see the multitude of poorly reviewed poorly written DYK. I reviewed more than 80 this year, only 4 had to be rejected. I hope they were reviewed well, smile. I keep a collection of DYK Germany, didn't see a single bad one there. I also collect DYK opera, same thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Respected editors such as Sandy Georgia claim to have never seen a DYK set without multiple issues. I think she knows what she is talking about. I regularly see articles hit the main page with suspect sources, POV and needing a jolly good copyedit even if many of them are absolutely fine. The problem is there is an inconsistency and I think the main page should not be inconsistent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How about accepting the fact that man is inconsistent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Accepting that should not be used as an excuse not to progress and improve. Improving the quality of the content that appears on the main page certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Nev1 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd prefer other options of solving the problem raised by Dr. Blofeld. Extending the scope of DYK to also include new GA's and FA's ect but not removing new content altogether. Extending the timeframe from 5 days to about a month to allow for more scrutiny. Agathoclea (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

New content would be featured on a sub page linked from the main page and would allow more room for multiple photographs and some additional features which at present cannot be presented on the main page because of its restrictions. This proposal is not to entirely scrap new DYKs, just keep poorly reviewed articles off the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Baby with bathwater ... Out of sight out of mind. New articles do benefit from mainpage exposure. Therefore I do dislike the subpage idea. Agathoclea (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you compare DYK page views and main page views an extremely small percentage actually visit the articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

True. But from my experience with Funtensee there is a spinoff and that would be severely reduced by having an extra page inbetween. Agathoclea (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitary break

• Oppose for all the reasons stated above.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Torn. I think something like 3 GAs per day in the same space as DYK would make sense. "Today's Good Articles". I would want a director(s) like person(s) to pick them and would draw from the whole bank, not from new ones only. Think the implicit named difference (and lower down and 3 versus 1) makes it clear to reader that articles are not as polishd as TFA. but good to show some (still strong) difference of article quality on Wiki. We could have some proposal thing on the side like TFAR, but that is just mechanics. (KISS though.) The only bad part of this is it basically blows up DYK and takes their main page space away from them. And hurts the individuals who like DYK. And I really don't mind if we just leave DYK in place for avoiding hurt feelings from blowing it up.TCO (reviews needed) 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The current DYK process works well enough and so doesn't need fixing. If GAs feel the need for some love too then maybe we could add achievement of GA status as a qualification to appear in the DYK queue. Warden (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think it is working well enough, even many of the most active DYK contributors and operators including myself claim it is not like it used to be or has problems and I think if we created a DYK Hall of Shame it would expose that there is a problem which exists. I personally have felt under pressure recently from DYK operators like MaterialScientist in regards to sourcing and standards and quite rightly and I'm not the only one. Do you realize how many complaints there have been in the last month alone about certain articles hitting the main page? Of course there are many regular DYK contributors who work incredibly hard at producing quality and interesting new content but its got to be said that to some it has almost become a sort of game and that the notch on the board is more important than the article itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The current system is broken and doesn't deserve to be on the main page. A radical change has to be made. Lightmouse (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support At what point will people realize that incentivising new content might not be our top priority anymore? When we have 10 million articles, 20 million, 50 million? Articles on previously not covered content are always a good thing, but quality content on any subject we cover should be a priority, especially now that have over 3.6 million articles. I don't think this proposal will destroy the incentive for new content. What it does is create incentives for people to improve current content, and/or to create new content with the goal of making it top quality instead of simply making it passable enough to get another notch on the old DYK belt.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just because something isn't our top priority doesn't mean that we shouldn't be proud of our new articles. Getting some of them on the main page, even for a few hours, generates interest and may lead to more editors signing up to create articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this half-baked idea, and for the umpteenth time, why do some users feel the need to continually start polls when there hasn't been any preceding discussion? Polls are supposed to occur at the end of a discussion, not the start. Gatoclass (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for such a "half-baked idea" I count at least 5 problems it would solve in one go.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'd also link the new-content-DYK subpage with the new "interested in contributing?" section I hope we'll see on the Main Page. These would be candidates for improvement and expansion. At the end of the day, the act of creating a new article carries one of the highest intrinsic rewards, I think; and therefore rewarding this action further with Main Page exposure like now never made much sense to me. A subpage is a bit of a compromise, allowing the system to persist but with less use of scarce Main Page space. Also worth noting that a lot of the problems with DYK-as-is may be traced, I think, to over-incentivising. Over-incentivise something (like easily measurable quantity) and you inevitably under-incentivise something else (like hard-to-measure quality). Rd232 ^talk 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I have participated in GA and in DYK. Of both of these, I have enjoyed DYK far more. The "drug" of seeing a DYK through a new article is enhanced by my involvement in topics completely new to Wikipedia. Edit for edit, DYK was more satisfying, fruitful than any GA I wrote or reviewed. DYK motivated me to search for interesting new facts which were new in Science but not on Wikipedia. The resultant stub often hosted more information than the solitary source contained. On occasion, when the authors of the papers from which the facts were taken were contacted, some awaited the DYK keenly and responded by adding images and providing more references, IceMole being a case in point. In the case of Nest-building in primates, two Flickr authors with restricted licensing [12] & [13] changed their licensing to allow me to upload their images for the DYK stubs. From my point of view, the DYK mechanism promoted me to deveop quality stubs. It is highly doubtful whether I would have got involved with DYK through GA or had a fraction of the pleasure. GA does not need DYK to incentivise it, but new articles and stubs do. The problem here is not with DYK or with the new articles per se as it is with the system or the actions of individual editors. Trying to solve that particular problem by switching from new articles to GA, or develop hybrid systems, is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath-tub. If GA needs to be revitalised and brought to the Main Page, a different scheme may be used which adds another box for highlighting GAs in a different manner. As such, I am in favour of correcting the problem in DYK, retaining the existing system and not in fundamentally changing its nature in any way to do away with the problem. AshLin (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - not every article is meant to be a GA. How do you make a 1500 character article into a GA anyway (that's for those who opposed my proposal to up the char limit)? I can also see this dragging GA standards down while failing to drag DYK standards up. Add GAs to the main page but not replace.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support in general anything that gets DYK off the mainpage, but I suspect instead that we'll be back here another year from now, still looking at enablers and denialists still putting copyvio, BLP vios and faulty sourcing on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until the theEnd of History, Wikipedia's going to continue to need expansion in terms of breadth as well as depth. FA and GA serve a valuable purpose by encouraging the latter; DYK encourages the former. Both should be represented on the main page. Several reasonable proposals for increasing quality control have been made on this page in the past 24 hours, and so far most of SandyGeorgia's complaints appear to focus on the closely-paraphrased contributions of a single editor. I don't feel like we're facing an insurmountable problem here. -- Khazar (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how moving DYK to a sub page and replacing it on the main page with better GA articles would suddenly disrupt wikipedia's breadth or potential. If all that motivates editors to expand articles is a brief view on the main page there is something wrong. Yes, we do need editors building up stubs but what proportion of articles are still stubs? If we really want to do something about that then losing DYK for new articles on the main page will make little difference. In replacement we need something which will give editors more encouragement than ever before to expanding existing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Blofeld, c'mon, do you really need to WP:BLUDGEON every oppose vote here? But to reply to your concerns anyway, my experience is that the promise of having other immediate eyes on an article is 1) an added motivation to create it; 2) an added motivation to do it well; and 3) provides an extra round of article improvement when that new article does hit the main page. You say that's a bad reason for me to be writing, but I'd argue we have to accept that not all Wikipedia editors do this through perfect altruism; sometimes we do it because it's fun. For me, getting that immediate feedback and exposure (which the current, hopelessly backlogged GA system doesn't provide) is part of that fun, and also a key part of improving what I'm writing. -- Khazar (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Khazar. I've noticed that my more recent DYKs are a pretty big improvement on my first ones. (Heck, I'm writing one that has 15k characters already and hope it can make it all the way to FA) Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Per my comments above. There are too many inherent qualitative problems with DYK that the simplest 'fix' is to replace it with a more proven quality mechanism. 88.160.245.226 (talk) (aka Ohconfucius) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a DYK contributor myself, the increasing pressure of late and negative press about hooks and quality of text/sources had made me seriously address what is going on. It largely comes down to the fact that many editors, myself included believe the main page should be representative of our best content and standards. There's no denying we regularly have articles hitting the front page which are cringeworthy and should never have got through. The fact remains that we just do not have the numbers to maintain the sort of universal quality that many expect of the main page. If we simply moved it to a sub page linked from the main page, sure we might lose 50% at least of people viewing the articles but it would alleviate the pressure on editors. My feeling is that if we moved to a sub page we could give the whole thing a revamp and customize it and make it more fun that it ever was before. We could even split it into subjects like geography, wildlife, sport etc and have different themed days or collaborative drives on certain topic to make it more fun. Do DYK contributors really care about their article being on the main page for three hours? I most certainly don't, what I enjoy is working with other great editors and expanding stubs into something half decent and having a log I can look back over and choose the best ones to develop into GAs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

While all editors may not feel the same, I do feel the pleasure and pride of having a DYK on the Main Page. AshLin (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Dr Blofeld has canvassed for opinions on his proposal from talk page watchers at SandyGeorgia's talkpage. Possibly he has also made similar approaches to people who are not quite so keen to see the DYK part of the mainpage re-used for more thoroughly audited content, or possibly he forgot to do so. If the latter, then it might be a good idea to assist in that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. I was talking to Sandy about this issue anyway and said I'd let her know when I propose something. If I was going to canvass everybody I'd go to talk pages such as Iridescent, Malleus, Giano, Hans Adler, anybody who has expressed disgust of DYK. If these people really want to vote oppose! or support! then they'll do so regardless. In fact I have informed some people about this who would like strongly oppose me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Letting her know is one thing; also making a specific appeal to her talk page watchers, as you did, is quite another. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. As stated in countless prior votes, DYK serves a vital and valuable purposes. In addition to promoting the creation of content (which remains today and will remain for many years a needed function), the DYK process encourages new editors and is the best forum for the widest base of editors to get their content featured (even if briefly) on the Main Page. As a Wikipedia newbie four years ago, someone took an article I created and nominated it for DYK (which I didn't even know existed). I thought that was a nice gesture and it served as a pat on the back. I am sure it has served a similar encouragement for hundreds (probably thousands) of other editors. It seems as though there is a group who comes back here every few months with a new proposal on dismantling DYK, citing one or two errant hooks (out of hundreds) to support that goal. In response, DYK supporters (myself included) seem timid in defending what is an incredibly good and valuable part of the project. I love DYK and oppose all of these efforts to dismantle, destroy, or dilute it. Timid no more. Alliterative and loud in my support of DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How exactly are dull as dishwater factoids such as "...Karen Stollznow writes for two skeptical magazines (Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer) and hosts two skeptical podcasts (Point of Inquiry and Monster Talk)" or "...a small single-runway airport serves Kapoeta South County in the Greater Kapoeta region of South Sudan" supposed to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia? Are they supposed to be inspired by banality or is it the low standard of article as highlighted by SandyGeorgia? Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is the real issue of those. I mean look at the references in Skeptic (U.S. magazine). Click ref 6 for example. No source information and a dead link and bare url. Articles with sourcing that bad should not go through period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That criticism would perhaps carry more weight if the prominent illustration on the right side of the page didn't provide the exact information the author was trying to link to (I assume a thumbnail from the back issue ordering page). Look: I think that the material appearing on DYK should be a) original (no copyvio/plagiarism) and b) not a pack of lies (which we defend against with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc.). Sandy's provided enough evidence of these things to make a good case that there's a problem. But picking this as an example of totally unacceptable work reeks of the "Pompo" Heneage brass-polishing tradition. Choess (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Cbl62 4.8 million people on average visit main page daily. Few DYK articles get more than 2000 hits. if you do the maths roughly 2499 out of every 2500 ignore DYK. Doesn't that concern you? I've contributed a high number of DYK article and I can count those who actually expand them with meaningful content beyond basic edits when they hit the main page on one thumb. There is an extremely high percentage who couldn't care less about our DYK feature as they choose to ignore it and search for whatever they want. The stats speak for themselves.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nearly as high a percentage of Main Page visitors who don't care about TFA, ITN, OTD, or TFP either, and ignore them all to search for whwatever they want. According to (unsourced) stats provided on the ongoing Main Page RfC, more than 99.5% of Main Page visitors fail to click through on any of these projects. Should we scrap them all and just put a big search box in the middle of the page? Possibly, but that's not a decision to be made here. cmadler (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - DYK material on the front page needs to be of the highest quality, and isn't that what the GA process is for? Adopting this proposal would ensure higher DYK quality, and increase the attention on the GA process. I suggest that DYK simply be a follow-on step to the GA process: when an article achieves GA, a hook from it goes into DYK. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It saddens me to see so many opposes that amount to "don't move my cheese". If the purpose of DYK is to provide an enjoyable experience for the editors who participate in it, then let's just shut it down. This is an encyclopedia, not a social website. Of course it makes sense to draw DYK material from content that has been audited. If that means that the DYK of the future looks different from the DYK of the past, that's fine. As an intermediate approach, I'd also suggest that we could try drawing DYK from both the traditional new content and audited content for a while, and see how that works out. I also agree with the additional support rationales given by Mkativerata, Tony, Nev1, Griswaldo, and Noleander. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons that I've given many times before. cmadler (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

for that very reason don't you think its a good idea to change to stop this anti-dyk discussion going on and on until we are blue in the face?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have noted my support for a variety of proposed changes, and will continue to do so when the proposed change seems to me to be beneficial. I refuse, however, to support change simply because the proponents of that change are doggedly persistent. cmadler (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support Brilliant idea, getting something to GA status isn't really that hard (non-native speakers are able to do it) and it often catches a lot of the issues that sneak by DYK reviewers. This will definitely encourage quality content building. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – GAs themselves can be passed by only one editor, and the quality of reviews has a tendency to vary widely. By doing this, we risk trading one problem for another. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• While one editor can pass a GA, the standards – which are intended to ensure an article is well-developed, decently written, properly referenced, and unbiased – are considerably higher than those of DYK which only asks that the hook is referenced. The DYK rules ask for a referenced hook and 1,500 characters of prose in a new article or a five-fold expansion, so that is what most reviewers will look for rather than assessing the quality of an article. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I know the average GA is better than the average DYK. What I want to know is if GAN reviewers regularly check for source reliability and plagarism/close paraphrasing, seeing as those are the issues pointed out above by Sandy. If GAs have problems in this regard (and there are still a lot of new GAs that have trouble when they come to FAC), then we'll be back here in the future with the same problems. Why should I trust GAN when that process has had its own faults in the past? The perception I have is that some reviewers are really good, and some are less than that. Almost sounds like DYK. Since you probably know GAN better than I do, are strong source reliability and plagarism checks being done? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Giants2008 makes a fairly compelling point: if, as Sandy has suggested, part of the problem comes from people gaming DYK to get "points," so to speak, the net result of this will probably be to drop the problem into the GA process and break that too (e.g., through cursory QPQ reviews that don't meet our present standard at GA). If there's a high volume of unacceptable material coming through DYK, it seems to me there are two possibilities: either creation of unacceptable material is encouraged by DYK, in which case we should be trying to rapidly and effectively cut off the individuals doing it, or Wikipedia is filling up with unacceptable material, in which case we should be seeking global solutions to the problem rather than trying to whiten the sepulchre by hiding it. Choess (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Giants2008's "compelling point" is a logical fallacy. It cannot be reasonably disputed that the quality of GAs is far beyond that of the average DYK article because of the GA criteria. Just because a solution is not perfect does not mean it should be abandoned if it is still an improvement. This proposal will get better quality articles onto the main page, surely a good thing when you consider that we are writing an encyclopedia and should be presenting decent articles to our readers. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling this a "solution" and "imporevement" doesn't make it so; we're arguing the pros and cons in order to make that determination. It is not a given, but an idea to be tested.
Consider: Right now DYK is often the only review new articles get when they are created, and the DYK review does discover prose problems, citation problems, and copyvios. If DYK goes to a GA-based focus, then that review process of new Wikipedia content is removed. The proposed "solution" to poor quality of new articles is thus really a proposal simply to look the other way, and to assume that the problem in new content will thus be solved by ignoring it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My point was not intended to be pro-DYK; it was intended to be anti-GA. There's a difference. Putting something on the main page because it's less bad than something else isn't the right way to handle things. GAN needs to be able to stand on its own merits, not get moved in because of DYK's weaknesses. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Geez, how many times do you people need to post the same proposal at once? The way the "replace DYK with GA" crowd likes to throw things at the wall over and over again in the hopes that something will stick, is starting to get pretty boring. It seems like you people just want to keep making the same proposal again and again in the hopes that one day you will luck out and happen to get a more supportive audience than usual. You guys have repeatedly jumped to make this proposal at the very moment DYK is getting criticized by outsiders. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to point out but your comment is inaccurate. The proposal you link to is not the same at all. That one is about a trial of enabling GA to become part of DYK, in a mixed system that is though to be a win-win solution. But if even modest proposals as that are massively opposed, don't be surprised that more and more editors want to remove the current type of DYKs from the main page altogether. --Elekhh (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I linked to several different proposals; more proposals are linked to from within those. And if you read the "support" arguments for this or any other of the proposals, you will see that many of the supporters are actually supporting very different things from the proposals. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The benefits of having it on the main page, and encouraging new articles, outweigh the costs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – There are articles which have been successfully nominated for DYK, but would never be GA in coming future, and many of them even have higher readership than TFA. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose New articles need to be highlighted on the Main Page. Cmadler demolishes the clickthrough argument quite effectively: it's a baseless reason simply being used as an excuse for trying to get rid of DYK because of the way in which a few people use it extensively. Moreover, as has been noted already, many topics pass our notability standards but simply don't have enough coverage to make it to GA: we can have simple articles on them that pass 1.5KB and demonstrate notability, and there's nothing wrong with putting those on the Main Page. What's wrong with having something such as Saxony Apartment Building on the Main Page? Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose demotion of DYK from the main page. Strongly feel that new articles and newly expanded articles will always have a place in DYK on the main page. This is a growing encyclopedia, designed to grow in both depth and breadth. No need to sacrifice either. In the real world non-Wikipedia web, new content on a daily basis is king, and produces loyal, sticky, recurring readers. Where other websites seek "conversions" by converting clicks into ad revenue, we want "conversions" of readers into contributors/editors, who can learn the ropes and make positive contributions as quickly as possible. Of course DYK quality is important, but oversight is the way forward for that. Demotion is not. Don't attack/deprecate other loci of WP activity. A separate notice for GA announcements makes sense, but not at the cost of DYK on the main page. --Lexein (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Khazar makes a good point above (depth and breadth of Wikipedia). Make the reviews better (for instance by giving special credit for flawless DYK reviews---badges often work wonders) and whack the few serial offenders, both of substandard writing and of sloppy reviews. --Pgallert (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I wouldn't mind having a featured Good article section for single good article every day or 12 hours or however we work it, but I am extremely opposed to switching out the current DYK with only Good Articles. Silverseren^C 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This will clearly improve the quality of content on the Main Page. For anyone who is unsure whether this would result in an improvement in quality, I strongly encourage them to compare the most recently promoted GAs with the most recent DYKs. Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The solution is to improve DYK, not to demote or kill it. Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for all the reasons already given. Plus, at a time we as a community are tearing our hair out because we think we're not getting enough new editors (a problem I'm beginning to have my own doubts about, but that's another story), what kind of sense does it make to drastically destroy the one thing that can most readily give new editors a sense of reward for their contributions? Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Daniel, if you've got your own doubts about it, why are you building your case for "Strong oppose" on it? Tony (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a rush and didn't feel the need/wasn't able to go into detail, so, I suppose, next time I should assume only good faith. But ... apart from whether the decline in newer editors is the indicator of the community's overall health that people, important people, have begun to take it on faith that it is, I think a section like DYK is ideal for helping develop new editors, by which I mean people who actually research and write articles, and review those submitted by others, as opposed to the many new users we get who make their bones by loading up with Huggle and Twinkle and reverting vandals and doing newpage patrol for hours on end, a process which doesn't do much to develop collaborational skills but could well be, in the absence of DYK, where we would be getting our new editors from. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose in current form, following Giants' reasoning. Don't get me wrong, the Good Article process is far from perfect. But at present there is relatively little motivation for someone to review a GAN unless they want to be a good reviewer, and there is relatively little time pressure. On balance, most mistakes at GAN are made by people who want to be good reviewers, acting in good faith, which is in stark contrast to the quid pro quo situation at DYK. Furthermore, at present it is considered a good thing for someone knowledgeable about a subject to review a GAN. This proposal is likely to change that perception, and increase the chances of people who like a specific field or article subject to go easy on it in the GA review. I support the idea of bringing GAs into DYK somehow, but effectively getting rid of DYK and replacing it with GAN + hook drafting is not the answer. —WFC— 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This proposal seems short on details and I fail to see how it's going to be sustaining presuming we follow a similar structure to DYK. From Wikipedia:Good article statistics it looks like we could probably do GAs in a sorta DYK format with about an average of about 6 hooks a day (rather then every 6 hours) i.e. ~2,192 a year. However if we limit ourselves to DYK (i.e. recently created or expanded) qualifying articles, it seems rather unlikely it would work. It's quite unlikely nearly all current GA promotions qualify for DYK as would be required to sustain 6 a day. There may be some increase if we make the new format but what's been proposed here seems to require a magic increase in numbers. I do agree the subpage idea is a bit pointless. If we want to get rid of DYK or non GA DYK or whatever then just do it, don't create a page that few people are going to visit Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I like the idea, but why not have two different DYK's? One for the new content and another for promoted GA articles? I'll support it if its like that. AJona1992 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the opposes above, won't solve the problem and smacks of the notion that DYKs should be mini-FAs, which is not what DYK is all about. PumpkinSky talk 20:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose As the easiest way for an editor to get their work featured on the main page, it's a really fun way to motivate content creation. I might support having one or two hooks per group being from good articles, though. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm happy with the idea that anyone could nominate a fact for a DYK from a GA or FA article, I think that would be a worthwhile expansion to DYK. As regards existing DYKs an extension to thirty days would be useful, not least because it would include articles found at the back of the queue at newpage patrol. I think that would be a good expansion to the system, but we also need some sort of editorial process so that "overly similar to x" becomes a good reason to defer a hook for a few days. ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sorry that this involves taking away some editors' fun. There are more important things. Linking to 3 or 4 good articles from the main page is a much better idea than linking to half a dozen possibly (too often) dodgy ones. Isn't that obvious? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage

There are at least five RFCs running now on DYK, so I can't endorse the idea of weighing in on any one of them specifically. What is abundantly apparent is that the DYK regulars who endorse the poor quality they are putting on the main page are doing so because they truly do not understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies or copyvio. DYK does *not* have enough knowledgeable editors to prevent the daily debacles that have been occurring for over a year, and DYK is encouraging editors who never improve their skills to the GA or FA level to plagiarize, commit copyvio, violate BLP, and put up articles based on blogs and other non-reliable sources. It is not a service to Wikipedia, as we no longer have enough editors to clean up the deficient content these editors create. Good and able editors do use DYK, but those editors will go on to get GAs and FAs, while those who never improve their editing knowledge beyond the rudimentary level of DYK continue to fill Wikipedia with content that violates our policies. There is no solution to DYK: this discussion has gone on for years, and many of the regulars here are tone deaf.

Remove DYK from the main page, period. We have plenty of other options that can take that space, and we can use those where editors improve the quality of our articles rather than churning out hundreds of deficient articles that DYK regulars don't even recognize as deficient.

• Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Vide the reasons I gave in previous RFC. AshLin (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Dr. Blofeld's suggestion above was likened to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, this is throwing all the interior plumbing as well. Working to improve DYK (and perhaps participating in some reviews) would be much more effective than sensationalistically suggesting it be scrapped altogether. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and while I'm at it, how many FA's exactly did Rlevse manage to score and over what period of time before the oh-so-vigilant regulars at FAC noticed that he was a serial "close paraphraser"? Just curious. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A proposal without an obvious rationale other than to get rid of that annoying DYK section, or that is how it comes over. Some of those RFCs that are being derided look like coming to useful conclusions (I'm actually a little surprised that's the case) that should improve the process and are generating more light than heat, which is a nice change. Mikenorton (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Overblown and per Gatoclass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. DYK has an important mission; several reforms are in motion; and per Gatoclass. -- Khazar (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's quite obvious that DYK has been getting worse, not better over the years, and it shows no real signs of accepting the need for improvement. Time to scrap it; Wikipedia doesn't need more articles, it needs better articles, and DYK is the antithesis of that. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  In the field of Science, that is certainly not the case that we have adequate number of articles, imho. AshLin (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  And how many science DYKs have you seen? There isn't even one on the main page right now for instance, so it seems disingenuous for you to argue that DYK encourages the production of new science articles. If there is a lack of such articles, as you claim, then that seems to be yet more evidence that DYK isn't working. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You just missed Inocybe godeyi being on the main page by a few minutes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Strong supporter of DYK per my comments in the proposal above, which also seeks to dismantle DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's been demonstrated that there are problems, but reform is the way to go, rather than scrapping the program. Let's work towards that goal. The Interior (Talk) 17:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the response here do you really think that reform is ever actually going to happen? For too many clearly are happy to go on ignoring the complaints and issues with DYK articles. They are content to go on without changing a thing, this is the problem. At this rate we'll be here next here with no change just like the front page stalemate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what page Dr. B's looking at here; it doesn't seem to be this one. At least five reform proposals either have already passed or currently have majority support, right?

1. A new page format allowing watchlisting and archiving of individual noms, to encourage accountability and lengthier discussion. (Already passed, soon to be implemented)
2. Loss of DYK privileges for QPQ editors who make an inadequate review, or nominators who repeatedly submit inappropriate material to DYK.
3. A more thorough checklist requiring editors to explicitly note that they've checked each minimum DYK requirement, again encouraging accountability.
4. Including items related to plagiarism and prose issues on this checklist.
5. A one-week time limit to bring submissions up to DYK quality to better focus reviewer attention and to more swiftly eliminate inadequate submissions.

I respectfully suggest that those editors insisting that DYK can never reform at least try proposing their reforms (and also comment on the reforms currently being discussed). The only "reform" proposals that appear to be clearly failing here are the ones to take DYK off the main page entirely, which seems to be "reform" in the same sense that Jack Kevorkian was a "doctor". -- Khazar (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Advocates of the current format assert that it encourages new editors, but apparently without consideration. If the purpose of DYK is encourage new contributors, a well-written article is more likely to encourage faith in Wikipedia and get people involved that the examples of poor work SandyGeorgia has highlighted. More over, having poor articles on the front page might create the impression that such standards are not just acceptable but encouraged as by appearing on the front page an article appears to have been endorsed by the Wikipedia community. If DYK cannot be reformed then it needs to be scrapped. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikipedia regularly has articles that don't live up to our standards. If we were realiou trulio serious, we would not publish the stuff and wait until it was more finished. Like a normal website. And people see them all the time, people Google into the 'pedia WAY more than using the main page (adding all the article views). Now, I can consider a view that the MP should be a standard setter, etc. But that's a subtley different issue.TCO (reviews needed) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. There is an increasing drive to drive new content and new editors away. This idea is one of them. We should rather be thinking on how to capture the willingness of people and looking for ways to include them in the process. Agathoclea (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose DYK does have problems, but I trust that some of the reform ideas will really end up benefiting the project. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nah, I have confidence in our ability to fix it. This is an over-reaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. This is a terrible idea. If implemented, it would effectively kill DYK - which is no doubt the point of the proposal. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – Don't take this as a tacit support of the current system, because that's not my intent. There need to be strong changes to improve DYK. I believe in the goal of highlighting new content, and there are some quality creations/expansions each day. The problem is that too many articles are being run, and just about every eligible article is put on the Main Page. Indiscriminate is the word that comes to my mind. What needs to happen is for DYK to run one batch daily of the best creations/expansions for a given day. That is what will save the process, and strengthen DYK's reputation, which is suffering at the moment. However, I believe that DYK can be saved and improved. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. DYK outlived its usefullness a couple years back. When it began, major articles were still being added to the encyclopedia. Now, pretty much everything of major importance is created, and now it's all about getting something written quickly to get on the page. DYK has been through reform after reform, and while it's better than it was in 2007, there is no way to modify it enough to keep junk off the main page while maintaining its original purpose. DYK's "vital purpose" is something I'm actually no longer sure of with all the proposals anymore. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  Your assertion that "pretty much everything of major importance is created" is flatly incorrect, unless you consider one- and two-sentence stubs to satisfy your creation requirements. See Plant ecology for just one example of a major topic that has more section headers than text on its page. DYK (as it currently stands) is as much about expanding these stubs with new content as it is about writing articles de novo --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, but it's not worth my time to re-hash reasons that have been posted over and over. I'm spending my time here improving things. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, with thanks to EncycloPetey for improving - this is what we should do instead of wasting time here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, sadly. DYK cannot go on, as it encourages the creation of articles that violate WP:BLP and often contain copyvios and unreliable sources. There are many capable editors who use DYK, but per Sandy they take their work to GA/FA. We are supporting the creation of content which is unhelpful to WP. Talk of a system to stop this happening has not resulted in any changes, so axe DYK or change from new articles to new GAs. —Andrew_stalk 00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as latest in a series of attempts at bludgeoning DYK out of existence to make a handful of GA enthusiasts happy without offering an actual solution to an actual problem. GA is chock full of junk reviews like this one, so egregiously slight that the author of the article felt compelled to request the review on his own. If that is the standard of quality to which supporters aspire, it's not the DYK folks who need a good long look at themselves in the mirror. - Dravecky (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The benefits outweigh the costs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? What benefits? What costs? --Lexein (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – Discouraging proposal. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Baby/bathwater. DYK serves one purpose, GA/FA serves another. When I've reviewed DYK suggestions, I have been quite careful not to pass poor/negative hooks, poor sourcing, or poor articles. New content, and new-expansion content will always deserve space on the main page - better oversight (and better tools for guiding reviewers) is what's needed, that's all. I'm pleased to participate in consensus against demoting/deletion of DYK from public view. --Lexein (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose That's a horrible idea and, to me, your wording was very offensive. Silverseren^C 10:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• For me the wording was like a kick in the teeth, frankly. A lot of people are working to produce good content for DYK and comments like that suggest that you think we're just wasting the community's time. Prioryman (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously. Why not userfy everything below A-class, or maybe take Wikipedia offline altogether? Most articles are actually worse than DYK content. --Pgallert (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - from what I can see, some of the reforms are actually going to be implemented. This (late in the day) proposal looks like some sort of over-reaction or some way to see what support there is for the extreme option. One thing I do agree with is that the multiple RfCs on this page are confusing, so can we please not have any more until some of the earlier ones are closed and some form of consensus emerges. If anyone want to put up yet another proposal, please, please discuss it first or mention it in one of the current RfCs. Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose For all reasons given in above opposes. Nominator has long made claims that DYK is full of "poorly-sourced, plagiarized and POV material" without giving any examples that this is a continuing issue. Certainly there have been flareups such as Carol Spears and Rlevse, but I don't see where this is a regular problem.

  I do agree the quality of our hooks could use some improvement of late ... however, I see it as being too many reviewers not realizing how dull a hook is, or not rewriting or being willing to rewrite or even recognize awkwardly worded hooks. I don't see endemic sourcing or POV problems ... look through the nominations and you'll see many, many instances of this being raised (Consider, as one of my hooks with photo is leading the section, that last night one of my hooks got flagged for something not at all related to the main hook submissions). Where is all this rubber-stamping? If I don't get it after almost 450 DYKs, I can't imagine a new editor should either.

  Maybe, if anything, we need a more constant group of reviewers like we used to have a couple of years ago ... I think we had a better quality of review when there were no bots involved and we had to, so to speak, walk four miles to school and back every day in the snow (And we liked it!) Back then I routinely reviewed five hooks every time I submitted a new one. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback: the list of Opposers here will be interesting when we revisit the DYK Daily Debacle next year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, if you're going to have that kind of attitude about this, you might as well just recuse yourself from any discussion of reforms to DYK because remarks like that could be taken by others as prejudicial to any assumption of good faith they would be willing to grant you. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose DYK is the most interesting part of the main page. DYKs are not and should not be mini-FAs. And yes there are way to many threads going on about DYK.PumpkinSky talk 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - look for my name elsewhere on this page if you didn't read yet why. I want to create content that is good to know (such as TvM, who died 5 years ago, tomorrow, Q6). Others do the same, look at a collection (repeated), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose a little more focus on how to improve DYK and a little less hostility to DYKers would be useful at this juncture. ϢereSpielChequers 14:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support this as best option if Dr. Blofeld's proposal doesn't fly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support I don't think there's a consensus to get rid of DYK. But felt I should voice my criticism for DYK right here in hopes that someone will try to make it better... or if they fail, that we can revisit whether we should have it at all. Dzlife (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Brainstorming related to RFC

I don't want to put this as a proposal yet for voting, but here's a related idea: What if we had a mostly GA DYK section, with non-GA slots (maybe capped at a certain number) reserved for editors who have never had a DYK before? This could get some recognition for new editors, but if you are a regular contributor you need to go through a more intensive review process to get your article on the mainpage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah Part II

From discussion to work: I have an admittedly unusual nomination running for Messiah Part II which might profit from more eyes. I will be off for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As the first reviewer of this article, I would like to second the request for more eyes and opinions. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, thank you, Crisco. Messiah (Handel) will go up to FA nom, perfect timing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn

Since several recent articles submitted by this user have been found to include examples of close paraphrasing, all his submissions will need to be thoroughly checked against their sources before being promoted. As a precautionary measure I have tagged all his current submissions at T:TDYK while this issue is under investigation. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Two articles need to be removed (from the queues and preps respectively) for double checking, as I've mentioned above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done that, and returned them to the top of T:TDK until someone finds time to check them. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit alarming to discover just how old this problem is and how little has changed: this has been going on for years, DYK has known about it for years and done nothing about it:

• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_34#User:Billy_Hathorn
• Misc

or the other sourcing issues:

• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_32#Proposed_rule_change

Perhaps someone here understands 1) why DYK has allowed this to continue, when it was a known problem, and 2) why there have been no sanctions? Who cleans up all the DYK-enabled plagiarism now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained how it happened, in my case at least, at the bottom of this RfC discussion about the "proper checklist" proposal. In short, the DYK criteria currently encourages meeting specific bars for length and newness, at the expense of quality; it's quantity over quality. A major overhaul of DYK's mission and criteria are urgently needed. NickDupree (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposed rule change in Archive 32 appears to have been rejected on the basis that, per WP:RS, a source need not always be independent/third-party; in some cases (limited, to be true) a primary or self-published source is suitable. Other concerns raised in that discussion have been since addressed. For example, DYK requires the entire article to be sourced with in-line citations (rule of thumb: at least 1 per paragraph). It might seem obvious that all sources should be reliable sources, but we've recently explicitly added that to the DYK rules. The section about Billy Hathorn in Archive 34 appears to concern his failure to cite reliable sources, which is both a DYK problem (that such articles were allowed through) and a Wikipedia problem (that such articles exist at all). As I mentioned, we've recently added an explicit statement in the DYK rules that sources must be reliable. There appears to be no mention at that time of any concern about plagiarism or close paraphrasing; in fact, one editor wrote, "Billy, your composition is not being disputed. The reliability of the IMDB source is unacceptable." The only mention of plagiarism or close paraphrasing by Billy Hathorn was by Iridescent, eight months ago, on his/r own talk page -- hardly evidence that "DYK has known about it for years and done nothing."

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means suggesting that this is acceptable. Billy Hathorn is a long-time editor who should absolutely know better. I haven't checked those articles myself, but accepting your word that they contain plagiarism and/or close paraphrasing (I assume you hatnoted them as such), I'd favor a strongly worded warning to the user indicating that if he submits any further such article, no matter how much time passes, he will be (duration?) topic-banned from DYK. As for the reviewer(s) who gave approvals, I don't know. As a start, if they have nominations in Prep/Queue/Nominations pages, we may want to pull/reject 1 nomination per bad review. cmadler (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen from the 2008 thread, Billy's use of substandard sources is a very longstanding problem, not just for DYK but for the project as a whole. His submissions here always require additonal scrutiny for their sourcing, and in my experience that usually happens. I've seen quite a few of his submissions get rejected for poor sourcing.

I haven't been very active on Wikipedia at all for the last eight months due to RL issues, and have had little participation here, but it seems clear that Billy is currently submitting a large number of articles and it appears he is cutting corners by lifting phrases almost unchanged from source. Obviously he is not getting the close paraphrasing issue and that needs to be pointed out to him. His employment of substandard sources is unfortunately a chronic problem and reviewers just have to remain aware of it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But how are new reviewers (of which there should be a fair number, after all this process is partly to encourage newer contributors) going to know that they have to remain aware of that - especially after all this gets archived away? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cmadler's response seems more to the point. There is no way we should be giving people license to throw dubious content against the DYK process over and over and over. If they aren't stopped and sanctioned appropriately, this scene will continue to play out year after year. Choess (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about other reviewers, but ever since 2008 what I did when I encountered Billy's reviews was basically take a zero-tolerance approach: if I saw any thing questionable (whether it be reliability of sourcing, close paraphrase issues, questionable notability, etc.) I just failed the nom without discussion, knowing that Billy already knows better and that he rarely makes a wholehearted attempt to respond to concerns. However, I don't think I ever sought anything more than this (blanket sanctions over all his nominations or anything) because occasionally one or two of his nominations didn't have glaring problems like that. Of course, given that most of the reviewers at DYK are newbies, they don't all know Billy's history and thus probably won't adopt the same zero-tolerance attitude towards his noms, so maybe the time has come to impose more formal restrictions on him. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My attitude has always been that Billy is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia in spite of his issues with sourcing and that I'd hate to do anything to discourage his participation. The close paraphrasing is an additonal concern however - I found a disturbing amount of it in an article of his I looked at yesterday. Billy needs to be made clear that this kind of thing is totally unacceptable and that he must put things in his own words and not simply lift phrases from his sources. If he can't comply with that as a requirement, then clearly further steps will need to be taken. Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the level of ongoing copyvio/close paraphrasing coming from this editor, I wonder if Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations might be the way to go. Even failing the nominations seems insufficient, as someone needs to clean up the mess (or it will remain a problem on Wikipedia -- just not at DYK), and Billy's continued addition of this sort of material needs to stop. (I say this having just come across more such problematic material in Hunter Greene, another DYK nomination by Billy.) cmadler (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• In continuing to check the sources of Hunter Greene, it appears to me that sources 7 & 12 in that article both contain cut-and-paste copyvios from Mr. Greene's own website. Of course, it's not Wikipedia's problem, except that in the case of source 7, the cut-and-paste copyvio contains the material being cited here (and in that case, I think it's material that we could reasonably just site to his own website or cut from the article: information about his religious and sporting activities), but it raises concerns about the reliability of two more sources in this article. We are nearing the point where, if not for WP:POLITICIAN, he might be considered non-notable. cmadler (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've also rejected Alan Seabaugh for extremely close paraphrasing verging on cut-and-paste. The "Background" section of the article follows his law firm bio in both structure and often wording. I will probably request a Contributor copyright investigation tomorrow. cmadler (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When I used to be more involved in reviewing hooks, I always gritted my teeth when I encountered Billy's. I totally agree with Gatoclass that his contributions are a net positive, but I often either had to say as gently as possible that sometimes they were dull hooks, not quite in accord with the source, or I rewrote them a little bit to avoid the close paraphrasing issues (Reviewers in the Old Days used to be more willing to do rewrite work on an article ... perhaps that could be more strongly encouraged?) Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• As promised, I've requested a CCI on Billy. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Billy Hathorn. cmadler (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for doing that. I'm two days behind, but just checked about half a dozen his most recent edits, and while a CCI is in order, the sourcing issues are also a very big concern. IMO, this person should not be editing Wikipedia at all, and ANI is where this should be.

    The DYK issue is, why did all of you allow this to continue? We have more than hundreds of articles which need to be basically gutted, and why are any of you saying he is a net positive? Based on the articles I just looked at, there is almost nothing salvageable of this person's edits.

    The much bigger problem is that, at DYK, it's Billy Hatorn this week, someone else next week, someone else last month, someone else last year, but there have ALWAYS existed editors who are enabled to continue by the reward of DYK, and DYK has never picked them up. This is a recurring, systemic problem-- Billy Hathorn is only the latest example. How many of you here can even name the top DYK editor who was a serial plagiarized for years, creating 100s of DYKs? I'll wager none of you can :/

    Even if more stringent review standards, and an elimination of QPQ, is put in place, without a directorate or accountability, what will get DYK to stop being the feeding ground where this kind of editing is enabled and encouraged? Who will be responsible? Look how long you all let this go on, look how many purely garbage articles were created, and who is going to clean it all up? I checked about half a dozen articles and didn't find much besides garbage. Why was this not taken to ANI years ago, why were sanctions not put in place, given the number of DYK editors who knew this was going on, and yet this editor continued to get DYKs? There is a systemic problem at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm not really that familiar with ANI; it says that it's not the appropriate venue for content disputes, which is what I think sourcing is, so I'm hesitant to take this there. If you think that's the place, feel free to open a discussion there and I'll chime in. cmadler (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It's not a content dispute, it's a long-standing behavioral dispute-- he doesn't/hasn't acknowledged or addressed past issues. If I ever get caught up (which is unlikely to be today), I'll start the ANI myself. DYK hasn't addressed the issues, so outside admin involvement may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"IMO, this person should not be editing Wikipedia at all". Sandy, a real Wikipedian would be asking themselves and the community how they could help Billy out, not stating their intention to run him off the site. Once again, you have gone out of your way to demonstrate withering, icy contempt for not only Billy but all of us, no matter how involved we are or not, who believe DYK to be a valuable part of the Main Page despite its imperfections. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on too many levels to address. It is abundantly clear that he hasn't addressed these issues for many years, but right now I'm more concerned about the systemic issues prevalent at DYK than addressing one symptom (one editor) that DYK enables, when this one editor is merely the latest in a long string.. Rather than dissing me, why don't one of YOU deal with the issues YOU have created. Yes, DYK has a long-standing systemic problem; no, it shouldn't be on the mainpage until/unless these issues are addressed, and neither should other editors be responsible for addressing and cleaning up DYK-enabled messes. Have you taken a look at the length of the CCI page? Who's going to clean up all of the Hathorn articles, and why didn't you all put an end to this years ago? You've known about it for how many years now ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to know what lessons can be learned from this to enable DYK to identify and monitor problem cases at an earlier stage. The closer reviewer procedures being rolled out now might be a start, but only a start. Do you have any suggestions, Daniel? It is very serious when such flagrant breaches slide under the radar with great ease for a lengthy period. Is "icy contempt" an interpretation of the frustration that dedicated WPians are likely to feel when they see systemic problems unaddressed for years? Other editors have been indeffed for relatively trivial breaches. Tony (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost picture for promoted hook

So the picture associated with my hook got lost in the move from the suggestions page to the prep area. I know that there are more picture hooks nominated than there are spots, but I don't often nominate hooks with pictures (this would be my second with a picture) and was looking forward to this one, and I'd like to draw attention to the nanotechnology/history of science areas which (I think) are not usually as well represented on DYK. I don't know what the etiquette is surrounding this and I don't want to unilaterally promote my own article; would it be permissible to return the hook to the suggestions page, or even move the hook to an empty prep area with the picture? On the other hand, if there was some problem with the picture making it less suitable please let me know. The hook in question is this one. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's basically up to the person putting together sets to choose from what's available and as you say there are too many images to actually use, so a lot of images don't make it. Unless there's an issue with the image that has been chosen there's no reason to change things - sorry, it's always disappointing when you feel that you've come up with a neat picture to accompany your hook, I've never got more than about half of mine through and I suspect that I'm not alone. Mikenorton (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

in queue needs fixing

Can an admin pls fix the in-queue protected page? It was "fixed" by someone, resulting in mis-matched tenses.

Should read .... "... that American NFL quarterback Robert Halperin was awarded the Navy Cross, won an Olympic bronze medal and a Pan American Games gold medal in sailing, and co-founded the Lands' End clothing retailer?"

New material in bold.

(now reads "was co-founder of ").--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination subpages

It's done [14]. For anyone who's confused about what this is, previous discussion about this stuff is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_68#New_nomination_setup, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_68#Ready to start nomination subpages?, and links therein.

I will stay near the computer for the next several hours to see what happens. If things start going crazy I can put it back the way it was before. I don't think anything will go crazy though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The new setup includes instructions for setting up AfD-like daily archives of nomination discussions (T:TDYK#How to archive a day's nominations). I just realized this might be somewhat confusing in light of WP:Recent additions, which is also an "archive", although it's an archive of promoted hooks only (basically, an archive of every edition of T:DYK). Perhaps we should think of renaming both archives to make things clearer (for instance, naming WP:Recent additions something like "DYK hook archive" and naming the other thing something like "DYK nomination archive"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the look of most of this, but like you am a little apprehensive about the archiving format. Is it really going to make it easier to find an old archive page from a bunch of daily archives? I guess it would work if a link to the DYK discussion was included in the DYKbot notifications, has any provision been made to do that? Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The archiving was something someone else suggested I think; personally I don't know how necessary it is. (It should be possible to find most old DYK nominations just by typing in the name, e.g. Template talk:Did you know/Some article; likewise, it sounds like lots of people want to also transclude the nom at the article talk page, like a GAN, which will provide another way to find it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now the shortcuts to the approval and refusal signs are not in the edit notice. It is a little hard to review if I cannot copy and paste the subst: templates. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I put it back on T:TDYK. Once all noms are on subpages it will no longer be needed there; I'll try to figure out how to get the {{DYKSymbols}} automatically into the edit notice of every subpage of Template talk:Did you know/ (which is the only way to ensure that those shortcuts are available for all reviewing). rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we theoretically use Template:Editnotice load? I am not sure how that works, but it seems that we could have it cascade down from T:TDYK to all of the subpages. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I just accomplished the same thing using Template:Editnotices/Group/Template talk:Did you know. Easier than I expected! rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it. I used the Nominate a New Article button (without saving) and your fixes showed up as an edit notice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(In time,) amendments should be made to {{dyktalk}} and {{ArticleHistory}} to link to subpage noms. Naturally these amendments should be optional parameters to respect articles that went through under the old (one page) system. —Andrew_stalk 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I just nominated something using the new system, and I have no problems with it. Good job! Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would still like to see some sort of article talk-page notification of a DYK nomination, either with a link to the discussion or even a transclusion of the discussion subpage. I can't count the times an article I've watchlisted and had material and sources that I hadn't gotten around to adding went through DYK and I only found out after it was already on the main page (because that's currently the only notification to the article talk page). If I'd known they were heading for the Main Page, I might have made those improvements a higher priority in my editing. cmadler (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't automatic (although some people have suggested making a bot to do it), but the instructions do urge editors to also post the nom at the article's talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that it should either be a required part of the nomination process, or it should be automated by a bot (which is beyond my ability to create). cmadler (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rjanag, but for those (like me :) who have always found DYK too arcane to follow, can you answer some Dummy 101 stuff for me?

1. Are all noms archived somewhere (that is, both successful and unsuccessful)? Are there separate archives for successful and unsuccessful, similar to FAC?
2. Are reviewers indicated in archive?
3. Will the archive indicate exactly who placed a hook on the mainpage? That is the bottom line accountability that is now missing; that is one piece of crucial info that we need if DYK is ever to become accountable for putting policy violations on the mainpage. There is no reason for admins who are putting policy violations on the mainpage to not be glancing at the garbage they're placing there.
4. I presume this is done now in such a way that they can be incorporated into articlehistory-- is that correct?

I hope I'm proven wrong, and we're not still, yet, and again revisiting these same problems a year from now with a new crop of plagiarizers and denialists, but if we are, archives will be helpful in gathering data for identifying the scope of the problem. Without accountability and records, there has been no way to get this problem under control. Thanks for doing this, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a new system, and as you can see, the details are still being ironed out. The quick answers are that in the past, nominations were only "archived" in the history of T:TDYK, but under the new system, each nomination gets a permanent subpage. Since they're subpages, they can be sorted in any fashion any editor wants, either through link or through transclusion. I'm not sure if the project has decided what form the "official" archive sorting will take, but of course, any editor can implement any sort method they'd like (within their userspace, or if enough people find it valuable, in projectspace). Reviewers are indicated in the archive, as they always have been on T:TDYK, the difference being that it will no longer be necessary to search the history of a large frequently-edited page to find. The initial promoter (from approved nomination to prep area) will probably need to leave some indication that a hook has been promoted, so that will be reflected in the archive. It will take a little more work to track the next step (promotion from Prep Area to Queue, which can only be done by an admin), but I agree that it would be valuable to have that also listed in the archive, as that is often the final check before the Main Page. (Items in the Queue should be Main Page-ready, as the advancement from Queue to T:DYK -- the actual page transcluded to the Main Page -- is usually done by bot.) This can and should be incorporated into {{ArticleHistory}}, though someone comfortable with template syntax will need to do some editing there. (While they're at it, they should probably remove the "dykdate2" parameter, which is for an article's second DYK appearance.) Again, the use of transcluded subpages is totally new for DYK, and we're still figuring it out. If you have any suggestions about how to implement further improvements in this system, I'd love to see them. cmadler (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Cmadler has answered your questions pretty fully; I'll just add a few more thoughts I had.

1. As for archiving, so far no really organized system for archiving has been set up, although the template is already set up so that when a nom is promoted or failed it gets placed into a category (e.g. "promoted DYK nminations from August 2011" or "rejected DYK nominations from November 2011", etc.). That is probably not the most ideal or well-organized system, but I would be happy to hear proposals from someone else as to how to organize them. The new instructions for promoting/rejecting at T:TDYK include some tentative instructions about putting pages into a simple archive (like what we have at AFD), although I'm not sure how useful such an archive would actually be.
2. Currently, reviewers are indicated in the subpage itself, not in the archive. Once a page is passed, it actually becomes pretty much invisible from outside (see User:Rjanag/DYK for an example): while the page itself still exists, when transcluded into another page it simply displays as "passed: Template talk:Did you know/Some article" or "failed: Template talk:Did you know/Some article]]". It would be fairly easy to update that so the visible text also shows the name of the editor who promoted/failed it (e.g., "passed by User:Some reviewer: Template talk:Did you know/Some article", although it would be harder to get it to show every editor who participated in the review. (Of course, both those types of information are still easily available if you just open the subpage itself, rather than viewing its transclusion from T:TDYK.)
3. Like Cmadler said, the new system doesn't include any automatic way to indicate who put the hook on the main page, and in fact I think that would be very difficult to automate without a bot. In the meantime, one idea might be to add something to the bottom of the nomination subpage itself (e.g., after the review and everything, some line saying "Promoted to the queue by: _____", and then whatever admin moves that set of hooks from the prep to the queue must manually go in and sign each of those noms. That sounds tedious (and it could probably be bot-ified in the future), but that might actually be what you and Tony are looking for--an extra step to force admins to personally review what they are putting into the queue that goes to the main page. Additionally, this would make it much easier to go back later and find who did it (currently, the only way would be to see the date on which the nom was moved into the prep, and then search the history of that prep around that date to see when that prep got moved to queue). This would also create a field for GimmeBot to harvest when updating ArticleHistory.
4. I don't think there would be any problem with incorporating this into ArticleHistory. I personally know very little about how GimmeBot works to update that template, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be able to provide, e.g., a date the article was on DYK and a link to the nomination subpage. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

DYKHousekeepingBot stopped. With the transclusion system phasing in the bot's stats would be inaccurate. I'll try to find some time in the next few weeks to rewrite parts of the bot to handle the new system. Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• The comment after the date section headings should be changed. It currently says:

  <!-- Please add your suggestion to the TOP of this section (after this comment) using either the template provided or a level 4 header with the name of the new/expanded article. -->

  Maybe something like:

  <!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add {{Template talk:Did you know/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the TOP of this section (after this comment). -->

  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If DYK remains in any form, *this* is the kind of review template required

My first preference is to retain DYK as a hybrid system that draws on GAs, FAs, FLs, and the very best of the newly created/expanded articles that currently have a monopoly at DYK. This solution would draw on both the "quality assurance and archiving" RfC I launched yesterday and Dr. Blofeld's proposal to change the scope of DYK.

This review template¹ is the kind of process envisaged in the "quality assurance and archiving" RfC above. Except for the last article bullet, all aspects are currently part of the DYK rules and selection criteria. Currently, they're just not checked for compliance, and no matter what happens to DYK, we have to start applying the existing rules. An abridged template for the article review bullets in this template could be used for GAs, FAs, and FLs, and possibly none at all if only newly promoted GAs, FAs, and FLs were accepted.

My second preference is to go with Sandy's idea of getting rid of the whole concept of DYK on the main page; this would be a pity, since DYKs with punchy, interesting hooks are a good idea for the main page. But in view of the text-overload that has plagued the main page for a long time, I'd be prepared to examine this option in an overall revamping of the main page.

¹ It's the "Faial Botanical Garden" DYK nom, if the flaky section-linking doesn't get you there.

Tony (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the general idea of the review template. I'd suggest a few improvements: make it an actual template (or integrate into the DYKnom template); link items to the specific DYK rule(s) being checked; and use some sort of icon (replace bullets with check marks) to make it more clear which issues have been verified/resolved. cmadler (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) Thanks, Cm. The specific selection criteria and rules would need to be expressed in the hierarchy of headings, then, I presume. At the moment it's not possible to link directly. If icons are to be used, could they be more convenient than having to scroll up to above the edit-box, wipe your cursor across a code, copy, move down, relocate, and paste? I think if a signature alone appears after the bulleted aspect, that should be a default endorse (so easy). If someone else comes in subsequently to insert a comment after that sole signature (i.e., I'm not so sure it passes), then there needs to be an explicit "OK" or "pass". Unless someone can invent a template that requires a single letter to be added in the syntax, such as p, f, q (for pass, fail, query). Tony (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you don't need headers to link to a particular place on a page. You can just insert an anchor id and that will do the job for you. This should be explained at WP:ANCHOR (specifically the 'span id' bit), but ping me if you need help with this. There should be examples around already for you to look at. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Update: I've changed the links Tony used in the example he provided, to show what I mean about linking to anchors, which already existed for what he wanted to link to. Am now going to make a draft of this in template space to be worked on (will link to it below). Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's just too complex - the suggestions page will end up a mile long with that lot under each nom. It is likely to make noms harder to read and understand as well. I envisaged a much lighter process, more like the ratings system on Wikiproject banners, where one replies "y" or "n" to a number of different boxes and the template outputs the appropriate icon accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass, in my view there's been far too much tick, tick, tick, and too little nuanced reviewing, where suggestions are made and acted on (or argued against). As you see from my sample review, there's no substitute for words. But a simple y/n icon system could work in addition, provided it doesn't become an excuse for non-review. It has become a workaday, almost automated task to use that clunky tick/cross icon system to whip a nom into a prep area. I do think those moving articles into the prep areas should usually read the comments, especially where it's not cut-and-dried. Tony (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone correctly pointed out in one of the threads above, every complication added to Wikipedia is a barrier for new users and a discouragement to their participation, at a time when WP is deeply concerned about declining participation rates. In short, the last thing we need to be doing is creating top-heavy processes where a lighter one will do the job. IMO we should always try the simple solution before opting for the complicated one. A simple checklist will help to remind reviewers of what it means to review an article, and it will make them accountable for their omissions. If we implement such a system together with some sort of sanction for, say, missing a plagiarism issue, I think that should go a long way toward helping concentrate the minds of reviewers on the importance of doing a thorough review. QPQ already gives us a large pool of manpower for reviewing - all we really need do is ensure that the available manpower is actually doing the job. Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise? Keep things short on the DYK nomination page, and have longer comments on the subpage and/or the article talk page. It might even be better if such a set of review criteria were used on all articles (yes, I know that is not realistic, but we should get there one day), and DYK simply had to tick a box saying that the article had been through this process. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you imagine what the review template would look like for the current 'Robin' nomination with 11 articles in the hook? It's already pretty difficult to navigate around the suggestions page. I would support something like Gatoclass suggests above. Mikenorton (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest, Mike, that 11 articles in one hook is way, way out of proportion, and should be split. Have all of the articles been reviewed properly for policy compliance and quality? Tony (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They don't come along that often, but generally a couple of reviewers take on the task. I'm not aware of any such nominations that have had serious problems in the past. Mikenorton (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

When we start a nomination/review, we get a sort of header which lists the pass criteria and their symbol templates. Perhaps Tony's list could come up there as a set of points to remind the reviewer to tackle. AshLin (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This seemed a decent review to me. Should I frame it as history? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the review template, though am slightly wary of Tony's emphasis on 'Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting' (they are obvious to him, but may annoy others). It would be better to add something like "see article talk page" if any long comments were needed. In fact, it would be better to have that template on the article talk page in the first place. I say this because article talk pages (or their subpages) should be the main place to discuss the content and writing of articles. Good article reviews are a subpage of the article talk page. Peer reviews and featured article reviews are separate pages, but are both available from the ArticleHistory template. At the very least, the DYK template that is put on an article's talk page should link to the review that took place, as that can be an important part of the article writing history for later reviewers to look at. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "annoy others"? And do you want to expose obvious errors on the main page? The strong support for the explicit list of criteria seems to be driven by the exposure of substandard articles and hooks on the main page, in huge quantities. If DYK isn't willing to fix obvious errors (that word is critical come-down from standards at GA, FA, and FL), let's give it over to GA, FA, and FL, and make the newly created articles a subpage. Tony (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The metric conversion thing, for one (in the Tatoosh range example further up the page). That is not an obvious error. I would judge metric conversions to be something that can wait until later. Wikipedia won't collapse if metric conversion templates aren't used immediately. If you try and point out everything that means an article is not in compliance with the Manual of Style immediately, you will annoy people, trust me. Drop the words 'obvious faults' (I would suggest: 'Brief comments on prose, structure, formatting') and move long comments to the article talk page. Keep this as a brief, initial review. Detailed discussion should be on article talk pages. And please don't over-react to what I said. I said I like the review template. Actually, I think it should be used on all articles to pass them for start-class or C-class, much like the Military History WikiProject have explicit B-class criteria. I say this because I would love to arrive at an article and know that early in its history it got checked by another editor for these things. Currently, I am usually very reluctant to start major work on an article without going back through the article history and the current text to make sure that there is a solid foundation to work on, and that the article hasn't been built on sand (i.e. copyvio and the like in the article history). Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking of "annoying", it's annoying to most people in the world to have to wonder what on earth 200 feet is. I can't visualise it. It's US-centric. It's not even a matter of an "obvious error in prose, structure, or formatting", anyway. It's something beyond that, and something the editor needs to deal with, thanks. Tony (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Can we now please get back to discussing the merits of your idea, which is a very good one? Are you familiar with the Military History WikiProject B-class criteria, and how they are integrated into the article rating template? What you are proposing is very similar, but done on a subpage (much like the Good Article criteria are). Would you support something like your checklist being used for all articles, with anything appearing on the Main Page having to have been checked in this fashion? Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Clarification: I should make clear that only the last five in the article criteria apply to all article - the rest are clearly DYK-specific criteria. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Was looking around in template namespace, and Template:DYKreview already exists. It is quite a bit different from what is proposed here, but is something to consider, or possibly repurpose for this use (though I would favour starting a new template altogether, such as Template:DYKfullreview). I'll draft that now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Update: and now done. Please see Template:DYKfullreview and see what can be done with it. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(e.c., and I've got to go to bed) Carcharoth, thanks for your supportive comments, and I guess a checklist is a good idea for all (primary) articles exposed on main page. To take up your analogy with the MilHist B-class assessment system, articles there are not about to be exposed on WP's main page. And I find their expression of pass/fail boundary confusing. The MilHist B-class FAQ suggests this incomprehensible babble is bad enough to fail: "The ship sunk in 1918, by torpedo from a germa uboat. 20 crew went down in it but most with CAPT excvaped in lifeboats and were picked up by example", and gives a "passable" version that is almost FA-perfect prose: "The ship was sunk in 1918 by a torpedo from a German u-boat. Although 20 of her crew were killed, the remainder, including the captain, took to lifeboats and were picked up by HMS Example, which was in the vicinity." I've left a note there about these examples.

Leaving aside this confusion, what really impresses everyone about MilHist is its elaborate infrastructure for mentoring, inducting, and training editors. At DYK, mentoring also needs to be part of the nomination process. I have a distinct feeling that if some review comments are shunted off to the article talk page, they will be utterly ignored at DYK and the nomination will float through regardless. Um ... has either nominator even responded to my comments from earlier today or edited their article? Nope; OK it's only half a day, but let's see if it's the culture of dump-and-run that I think it is. Sorry, this is neither a mentoring/induction process nor acceptable prep. for main-page exposure. Because the community realises this, there have been scarcely one or two queries, in a sea of supports, about my addition of the "obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting" bullet. You suggest removing the "obvious" word, but that would increase the requirement, not reduce it. I purposely inserted "obvious" to go easy on the standards. And specifying that only "brief" comments be made at the nom page could come down to "Prose needs work, please find a copy-editor". The prose for both articles I reviewed using the "template" style wasn't too bad, actually; but where a sentence doesn't make sense, or the whereabouts of the island isn't revealed, someone should point it out—not put it on the main page, then fix it later if at all. It's a crazy reversal of what should happen.

I don't know whether you've noticed how much ill-will there is about the current DYK model; there are not-very-nice things being said on Jimbo's page as we speak. Well, I'm trying to do DYK a favour by saving the newly created/expanded article idea from being completely tossed overboard by the community. But resistance to a tighter review process is starting to swing me towards Dr. Blofeld's proposal to replace this with what are much much better and time-tested articles from processes that are distinctly under-recognised. It's your choice, guys. DYK nomination pages need to be longer, and nominators need to actually engage with reviewers.

The ridiculous flinging of up to 32 newbie-article hooks a day onto the main page will naturally be stemmed by a proper review process. Sooner or later, we're bound to see a shift from article creation to article improvement by the introduction to DYK of at least some GAs, FAs, and FLs. Whichever way it proceeds, this empty spraying of noms onto our showcase main page has to change. Tony (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but a bit less of the rhetoric would help. It is possible to highlight these problems without words like "spraying" and "ridiculous flinging up" and "plagiarism central" (from SandyGeorgia below). Even if you (and Sandy) are right to use those terms it only raises tension to use those terms in such a dismissive fashion. Have a look at what Moonriddengirl wrote somewhere up above. That is the epitome of a calm, helpful response. At the moment, this page is out of control because of the multiple proposals here. Hopefully the stuff that has support will be implemented, but a lowering of the rhetoric all round will help. The other thing that doesn't help is people periodically raising problems and then returning to the areas where they are also active (in Sandy's case, FAC) because they don't have time to see things through here. What is needed is someone to have a clear vision of what the endpoint is here, and then to take the time to make proposals and participate calmly in discussions that bring things towards that new point (over several months if needed). If Sandy had taken the time to do this when she first realised the problem (or first realised that no-one else was dealing with the problem), or asked someone with more time to devote to it to push things forward, then we might have got to this point sooner. At the moment, people are trying to make their points too forcefully, in a rather overbearing manner, and it is rebounding on them to some extent (witness the flare-up between Sandy and Gatoclass below).

OK, enough of the meta-criticism. What is the best starting point? To list the proposals on this talk page and see what the best way forward is? I would suggest a separate page for that. Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals would be one place. Maybe someone could move things there (leaving links here) and make things a bit more organised? Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, still, on the allegations of rhetoric and hyperbole. Nothing short of Plagiarism Central fits, and the fact that this has been going on, systemically, for at least three years, often discussed, and has of recent become much worse, means the alarm is justified. Please stop trying to brush the severity of these issues under the rug by silencing critics. DYK is enabling editors who have no business editing Wikipedia at all, rewarding them for faulty content, and allowing them to place policy violations on the mainpage with articles that never get cleaned up-- they simply unwatch them after they get their "reward". If they couldn't get their endorphin high at DYK, maybe they would stop creating faulty articles. DYK is harming Wikipedia; the many editors who use DYK as a first stop on the way to GA and FA don't need or seek the endorphin high of DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your criticisms are valid, but disagree on how you are going about raising the alarm. Anyway, let's put that to one side and see whether your suggestion below of "We need one, coordinated, well thought out RFC placed on a separate page" can mesh with my suggestion for Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals? If those commenting here came together to edit a page like that, we could get somewhere, rather than everyone arguing. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I find two aspects of this troubling:

• "Please stop trying to brush the severity of these issues under the rug by silencing critics." I apologize for not having been bowled over by your logic and intellect, but simply not being persuaded by someone who has not missed a single opportunity to call a subgroup of the community you feel part of all sorts of sneering names does not count as "silencing". (If they really wanted to silence you, most of the people here have a big red button they could do it with if so tempted. It wouldn't be right, and I certainly wouldn't do it, but if they did then you'd be right.
• "DYK is enabling editors who have no business editing Wikipedia at all ..." So you want to be the one who decides who's good enough to edit Wikipedia, and who isn't, all by herself? That goes rather counter to a core value of this project, don't you think?

Please, Sandy, you have made some good points elsewhere and engaged in constructive discussion. I suspect that there would be less resistance here were your words not dripping with the implication that everyone who is or has been involved with DYK is unfit to edit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet examined the proposed template, but any sort of review process here will not have teeth until *someone* is accountable for putting policy violations routinely on the mainpage. We have multiple DYK regulars here, expressing the same opinions over and over, year after year: they don't see the problem with close paraphrasing, they don't see the problem with faulty content being created based on non-reliable sources, and they don't acknowledge that this faulty content is never cleaned up by the additional eyes cast on it during its mainpage day. DYK should be pulled from the mainpage entirely, since these problems have recurred for at least three years that I'm aware of, or DYK should have an elected directorate which oversees the process to assure it stops functioning as Plagiarism Central and an embarrassment to our mainpage. Directorate, or nothing, is my vote. And if the Directors include any of the current crop of denialists, they can then be taken to task via an RFC if they continue to disgrace the mainpage with faulty reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

PS, what became of Art LaPella and Royalbroil? The problems here have become decidedly worse over the last year, and IIRC, they at least "got it", unlike some of the regulars contributing now. Previously, the main problem was plagiarism: now those problems are multiplied to where it's now necessary to explain to regulars here what close paraprhasing it, what copyvio is, what reliable sources are, and why Wikipedia articles can't be build on non-RS. Putting a template in place, without some knowledgeable oversighters, will merely allow regular DYKers who put faulty content on the mainpage to pass the buck to the reviewer who passed it. We need a knowledgeable directorate-- where did the old-time knowledgeable folks go? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Art's still involved in DYK (check his contribs) and even contributed to this discussion recently. Royalbroil still edits but is currently devoting himself to WP:NRHP, it seems. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Break to examine history

This is really getting beyond a joke. Your ongoing assault on the integrity and good faith of DYK regulars is nothing short of disgraceful. There are many people here trying to work to improve the system, and doing it without resort to verbal handgrenades; it's a pity you seem incapable of following their example. Your contribution to this debate ceased to be constructive many posts ago and has just become inflammatory and disruptive. If you can't contribute in a civil manner, then I urge you to leave the discussion to those who can. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you would love to silence me :) :) Tony, you started too many RFCs in the wrong place. Some DYKers seem to think that anyone critical of DYK is not allowed to participate on this page, and there are simply too many RFCs. We need one, coordinated, well thought out RFC placed on a separate page, where the denialists can't continue to claim that critics aren't welcome in the discussion. Look at the kind of thinking that prevails on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "silence" anybody. I'm always prepared to give legitimate criticism a fair hearing. What I find objectionable are the gratuitous personal attacks. As someone who has spent literally thousands of hours doing my best to protect the integrity of this project and the main page, I take exception to being dismissed as a "denialist" without either a clue or concern about core policy. Again, if you can't make your point without resorting to such slurs, it would be best if you left the discussion to cooler heads. I'm not asking for silence, just a little basic civility. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is understandably dominated by those working within the existing DYK process. Perhaps this is the wrong place for a balanced RFC. Lightmouse (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think so, and the fact that there are now almost a dozen (???) RFCs on DYK means we're not getting good feedback. Let's look at some history: eight of the ten archives in 2008 (between 26 and 35) discuss plagiarism and copyvio at DYK (Archive numbers 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34)-- and all of those are before the October 2010 debacle. Since then, the DYK problems have expanded to include blatant problems with the size/expansion criteria based on text cited to non-reliable sources, not to mention the ongoing copyvio issues. The problem has gotten much worse, and DYK is now populated by even more editors who deny the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tough when you can't get enough people to agree with you isn't it? Still, that's called consensus and it's how this project works. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't look now, but you're slipping into that territory where you allege I am :) Please feel free to post evidence of one single personal attack-- I'd love to see it. Criticizing a faulty process is not criticizing a person, but if you're saying the denialist shoe fits, feel free to put it on. Now, do you have something productive to add about just how long the copyvio problem has been occurring, with different names, same place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless certain people here are willing to accept that there are some serious faults with the DYK process with the issues identified and constructively start to put forward an effective plan to deal with it then nothing is going to change. It might take a serious scandal to get people to wake up. Would ensuring every DYK doesn't have these issues change the fact that plagiarism and POV etc is at bay all across the site. No, but at least they wouldn't be promoted on the front page of a website which is supposed to have strong standards against them. Its bad enough that so many articles on the site have this problem without promoting them on the main page for all to see. DYK needs to clean its act up, no doubt. Even my fellow active DYK contributors admit the standard has to be raised. If DYK is not dropped or demoted to a sub page it should at least reform to select only the better articles and be less careless. Wishing to improve standards, nothing wrong with that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps SandyGeorgia's concerns would be better addressed if the User were more moderate in the language used. The extreme stance is a real put off to people who otherwise would like to pay attention to and address the legitimate concerns. The long diatribes also seem to indicate a "my way or the highway" attitude, in addition to the complete scorn shown towards the majority of the editors who participate in DYK. The words used seem to indicate that no other editor is welcome in WP unless they are capable of FA/GA class edits, a direct contradiction of WP policy that anyone can edit.

As such, it is difficult to resolve anything about DYK under such a constant stream of vitriolic criticism. I'm giving my opinion here because User SandyGeorgia says that only a few are giving feedback. As someone who is/was willing to listen to the user's arguments, though one may not agree with them, I would like to say it is all becoming a bit too much and I must concur that it is questionable if there is any more use for this kind of participation. The threats of RFC, ANI; calling people who agree that there is a problem but do not accept User:SandyGeorgia's solutions as "denialists", and wanting to weed out editors who dont agree is really objectionable. It is astounding how the user expects other editors to put up with such behaviour while holding others up to similar standards in turn. The editor has made some points very cogently, and it is time for the editor to stand back and allow people breathing space so that the issues brought up can be addressed. Dr Blofeld, I'm sure most of us agree there are problems, and that they are of the kind described, but no one likes to be herded towards a solution in the manner being attempted. Let the solutions come through consensus and discussion. AshLin (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Sandy, you know I agree that most of your concerns are valid ones, but I've also been surprised that you've combined these legitimate concerns and useful suggestions for reform with so many unnecessary insults. You've suggested several times that anyone who works on DYK has no sense of shame, decency, or intelligence (for example, [15] and [16], but a simple glance over this page shows several more). This has been pointed out to you several times and you've kept right on doing it. Besides general civility concerns, I don't know if that kind of blanket hostility is really doing your cause of reform much good. My experience is that people are often less receptive to change when they're being called shameless idiots at the same time; perhaps we can agree that we're all intelligent and concerned editors who might have legitimately different opinions, and try to work from there? -- Khazar (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

These are not "User:SandyGeorgia's concerns". The systematic failings of DYK are concerns for all of us. Lightmouse (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And for me as well, as I've noted all over this page. So I don't mean to suggest that these concerns are exclusively SG's, and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I only mean to suggest that she might refrain from insulting other editors when expressing her concerns, or her share of these concerns, or whatever phrase you'd prefer to use. -- Khazar (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lightmouse's statement, but there are norms to discourse and there are limits beyond which transgression is counter-productive. The points have been made. Let the community discuss and come up with solutions. One should not expect to force consensus on any one by aggressive pushing. There are varying degrees of acceptance about the nature, scope and solution to the problems. The community has to find a way that all are comfortable with. Constant criticism and incivilty are only going to make people harden their stance. You have to AGF for all concerned, just as we assume AGF with you. AshLin (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding to AshLin's comment... Constant criticism and incivility not only make people harden their stance, they make some people go away. The negativity surfacing in these debates is totally counter-productive to "think tank speak" , let alone to creating new articles or expanding existing ones. Isn't that what DYK has always been about, people? Let's add a little kindness into the comments that are being generated here, please. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is counter-productive to be uncivil but I honestly doubt that if Sandy Georgia was suddenly very praising and gushing about this anybody would agree to reform anyway. It looks more like frustration to me that DYK is permitted to continue with these issues every day and nothing is being done about and they keep appearing on the main page in an embarrassing way. It seems to me she is only referring to DYK editors in this way because progress is not being made and she like many are tired of trying to do something about it and being met with the same brick wall. Certain people are oblivious to the main problems with poorly reviewed articles being showcased on the main page. Colonel Warden above even claimed something like "DYK runs perfectly, we do not need to change it". Unless people actually accept that we should not permit copyvios and other articles with major issues hitting the main page and need to come up with a mechanism to stop this, and fast. Maybe if she felt like she was actually getting somewhere with this....I 'm frustrated with the stalemate I've seen here over just 24 hours. Sandy has been trying for weeks to at least get some reform over this. OK, so there are editors here including those above who accept DYK needs to change and that these issues aren't acceptable. But what is anybody actually going to do about it?

If we are to be serious about this, the only way we can maintain the high standards which should be expected of the main page is to either scrap it entirely or demote it to a sub page. We simply do not have the editors to vigorously check every article going through. Under the current review system editors only check to see if the hook is verifiable, they do not care about doing detective work and identifying plagiarism,. Very few editors have the time to do this or could care anyway. Personally I don't think DYK is worth the time and heartache for what has show to be of minimal significance to our main page viewers anyway with a 2499/2500 people ignoring visiting the articles. I've suggested a way in which we could actually deal with both front page quality problems and keep the regular DYK but a lot of people seem to get a buzz out of the fact their article is on the front page for a few hours. At the end of the day DYK is supposed to be fun and if the standards have to be raised so high and reviewers continually going on that its not good enough then this would make it not worth bothering nominating articles and simply concentrating on GA development. Taking away the pressure from it appearing on the main page in my view would be a positive thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) On the contrary, I think this debate has made us all more careful. I personally rechecked my DYK nomination "Somali bushbaby" for copyvios. I pointed out close paraphrasing problems in my self-nom QPQ review for which the reviewer later withdrew the article to resolve the issues completely. So it is not to no avail. Understand that change will come but it is seldom in the form we want it to. That apart, I sympathise with Sandygeorgia's frustration but that cannot excuse incivilty and name-calling DYK editors. AshLin (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As regards the above post by Dr Blofeld, I do not agree with the way suggested out of the impasse - to leave the Main Page. AshLin (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Also in response to Dr. B, as I mentioned in another thread here, it appears to me that actually a number of reforms are moving forward. A new page organization to allow watchlisting and archiving was just introduced (thanks again to the awesome Rjanag for taking charge of this); Casliber's proposal to start including GA hooks appears likely to narrowly pass; two of Tony's proposals for greater accountability/checklist and disposal of problem hooks are overwhelmingly being approved; Volunteer Marek's proposal to make a more explicit checklist for reviewers to ensure their responsibility/accountability is being approved; and the proposal to censure editors who put together shoddy reviewers or noms appeared to be supported until it was lost in the massive number of RfCs introduced afterward (If this does get swallowed up without action, I'll try to reintroduce it in a few weeks when the activity has died down a bit and it can get proper discussion). Whether these reforms will be enough to fix problems and assuage concerns remains to be seen, of course. But I'm not sure it's fair to describe this as "stalemate"; it seems like despite the "us vs. them" vitriol of a few editors, middle ground is being found and changes are swiftly being made to address these issues. -- Khazar (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

AshLin the thing is though very tight reviewing standards are offputting to the whole DYK contribution process. It just isn't fun to continuously have to fix sources and issues just to get your article to appear on the page for a few hours. It isn't worth it. If standards are so high it would be best just to skip DYK and try to develop an article straight to GA. I think part of what Sandy has been saying is that many editors are looking to "make a quick buck" if you know what I mean by getting their daily DYK credit and are not willing to put in the extra effort to get their articles to a higher standard. Some of the articles which I contribute which have had minimum effort put into them probably are not good enough to reach the main page but they do. Those article which have had that bit more effort put into them and are well on their way to become GA are deserving of it, which is why I think we should be aiming for GA quality front page features beyond the barely start class entries with under 5 sources. If having an article appearing on the main page is a motiviator we should be raising the bar and using it as a process to develop more good articles and promote people to produce them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld, thanks for elucidating your stand. I agree that there is a push for higher standards, and they are making DYK more difficult for casual editors. When I did GA reviews three-four years ago, I was not even aware about the whole copyvio-close paraphrasing business. Today, it now not only has become an important feature in all featured content of various kinds but a necessary skill for all serious editors to learn. I don't see the trend reversing, only strengthening. So this trend, a positive one but involving a steep learning curve, is hear to stay. So the ante has been raised for the normal editor. But GA standards are many notches above DYK standards. Part of the fun of DYK is that for short stubs, one can get some recognition. DYK made me interested in scientific news stalking. I found interesting snippets from Scientific American, Nature etc on topics missing in Wikipedia etc and made them into decent, referenced, stubs which filled in the gaps of the Jigsaw Puzzle that is Wikipedia. As a result of which articles like Hypergravity, Structures built by animals, Nest-building in primates, IceMole, Géza Horváth and others came into being which I would otherwise never have bothered with at all in the first place. Similarly stubs such as Somali bushbaby, Conservation of fungi (rescued page), Micronecta scholtzi, Manipur Bush Rat, Franquet's Epauletted Fruit Bat and Screaming Hairy Armadillo got meaningful development besides a huge host of enrichment across the spectrum in related articles by addition of a referenced fact or two. So I feel that my 12 DYKs have affected more than twice and nearer thrice the number of articles. All this is because of the childish pleasure in Main Page exposure to show my family & friends. Moving all this away from Main Page will really demotivate editors like me who crave main page exposure from participating. Imho Main Page DYK has a way of enriching WP in ways FA & GA cannot provide. GA/FA are like tending "plants" to become "healthy trees" but DYK is like speciation, it increases "biodiversity". So my suggestion is that we find a solution without removing new articles from DYK and without removing Main Page access for new article DYK stubs. Rest is negotiable. AshLin (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires..." - Samuel Adams (via Dravecky (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

To be applied now

• I'm sorry, was there a concensus to start applying this now? At the very least, old noms should be grandfathered in to the old method. Adding the template to every single nom that is on T:TDYK now is just cluttering it more, and some users may not be able to open the page if it is too long. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore Rock Opera Society

Surprised my Baltimore Rock Opera Society DYK is not in the lead spot, especially given the sweet image [File:Grundle Monster in the BROS production "Gründlehämmer".jpg] that goes along with it. Anyway I can get the admins to reconsider? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. See #Lost picture for promoted hook. Shubinator (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sweet picture at 200px, but confusing at 100px. That is why I decided to go with something simpler when moving the hooks to prep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I appreciate the explanation. I just feel bad getting beat out by some boring Swedish guy. Totally not epic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK and the weather, and Twain or Warner

All these threads about improving DYK remind of the that famous saying about the weather, here it is but with a DYK twist: Everyone complains about DYK but people can't agree on what to do about it. (orig saying from Mark Twain or Charles Dudley Warner, depending on which source you consider more reliable. PumpkinSky talk 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

St Mary and All Saints' Church, Great Budworth

In Template:Did you know/Queue/2, the first hook, ... that St Mary and All Saints Church (pictured) in Great Budworth is considered... could an admin change the link "St Mary and All Saints Church" to "St Mary and All Saints' Church, Great Budworth", and add an apostrophe to "Saints"? Albacore (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Helpful tools to identify plagiarism/copyvios

In regards to the peristent copyvio/plagiarism problems at DYK, I wanted to list some helpful tools for reviewers. These work best with websites. For books, the ol' search or side-to-side comparison is needed.

• Duplication Detector
  • Can compare two different URLs and/or files.
  • For the best accuracy, use the current article revision, not the default URL. I.e http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_(geography)&oldid=440965051 not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_(geography).
  • Always read the non-bolded words around the matched text in a comparison. Although a few words may only match, close-paraphrasing may be apparent.
• The Earwig Copyright Violation Detector
  • Just be careful of mirrors.
• Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
  • Very helpful in determining the age of a webpage. With this you can determine whether another site mirrored one of our articles.
  • Works best with websites based in the U.S.

A great how-to guide can also be found here.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Duplication Dictator is lots of fun. Hmmm, let's see... random Geography GAs... nope, nope... nope ..., here is one [17] (Ein Avdat from here). Close enough to check same editor's others articles... yup: Al-Muallaq Mosque almost verbatim from here. And let's see... [18] and [19], Rochdale Town Hall from here and here, not as bad but definitely in the "close paraphrase" territory. This too I think [20]. So about 30 mins of searching yields 3 potential copyvio/close paraphrase GAs + 1 old DYK (and I notice lots of these GAs have a buttload of deadlinks)Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Before we cast too many aspersions at the clearly-failed GA process, I've personally been the 'victim' of the reverse effect: a website copies the prose from Wikipedia verbatim without credit or reference. The team history on the Oklahoma Thunder official website seems darned familiar, for example, because I wrote it here and they copied it there. - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, which I've also encounted, hence Volunteer Marek's suggestion to use the Wayback Machine to check for that exact issue. cmadler (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

It would be typical to ask an uninvolved admin to close and interpret the RfCs, and I leave it open for that to happen at a later stage. But given the stark numbers in most of the RfCs and surveys we've had—all of them still live—and the urgent need to establish a clear way ahead for DYK, I'd like to be bold and present the results as they now appear. For this purpose, I've putting on as neutral a hat as I can, and will suggest ways forward based on the data.

Checklist

First, the RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist, launched little more than two days ago, has overwhelmingly endorsed the following proposal:

“ No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
2. neutral point of view;
3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

”

I've counted the !votes and, as usual in RfCs, had to interpret the "qualified" ones. I've done so as fairly as I can: for example, Sandstein's "I support the principle, but oppose in this form" I counted as a qualified oppose. I also categorised as qualified oppose Crisco's Qualified oppose, even though his quibble is only when in the process the checklist should be applied; and cmadler's "in principle" support, but "weak oppose" over bullet 5. By the same token, I classified Ohconfucius's "weak support" as "support", since his quibble is that "a more radical change is necessary". I disregarded complaints above that RfCs should not have been conducted on the DYK talk page because it is dominated by DYK regulars, and conversely the absence of !votes from one or two DYK regulars who would probably oppose.

Of 37 !votes, the count is:

• Support: 28 (76%)
• Support (qualified): 2
• Oppose (qualified): 3
• Oppose: 4

Against this overwhelming support, there are concerns by several participants over the implications of bullet 5 ("Obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting", with the potential to offend nominators), that reviews might be too long or exacting for the current DYK model, and that there may not be sufficient reviewers to satisfy the current flow of DYKs. However, I believe consensus is manifestly clear and unlikely to change significantly in the coming days. After a discussion on my talk page earlier today, User:Carcharoth created a template to use on nomination subpages to implement the results of the RfC (Template:DYKrev, implemented by typing {{DYKrev}}). I thank Carcharoth for creating this template, and it was his action that prompted me to write this thread. I believe it's appropriate to use for all noms from now on, although:

1. someone may be able to streamline the template in the future so it appears automatically;
2. a convenient system of coloured icons (yes/no/query) has been suggested for use with the checklist, but remains to be developed; and
3. nothing is set in cement, so naturally the checklist is subject to feedback.

Seven-day archiving

At the same time, a complementary RfC was launched that seeks to provide for the proper management of the nominations page: RfC proposal: archive unsuccessful nominations after seven days. This proposal has also been overwhelmingly endorsed:

“ A nomination that has not met the requirements seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer¹ should be declined and archived, unless an administrator involved in DYK queuing grants an application for an extension of a specified number of days. Time limits include time spent in a preparation area.

¹Or a similar arrangement decided on by editors at DYK, such as a template expiry date.

”

Of 26 !votes, the count is:

• Support: 21 (81%)
• Support (qualified): 2
• Oppose (qualified): 1
• Oppose: 2

I ask the community to consider implementing this arrangement as soon as possible.

Other data and open questions

A proposal launched eight days ago to conduct a trial that would see GAs included in DYK process—Good articles redux—sought consensus for the following (slight tweaks here for the sake of context):

“

• Recently listed Good articles eligible – i.e. within five days of listing.
• A limit of 1 (or 2) GAs per set of hooks.
• Change the main page from "newest articles" (in which 5x expansions aren't [necessary] anyway) to "newest and newly improved articles"
• Review after a month and see how folks feel about it.

”

Of 36 !votes, the count is currently:

• Support: 21 (58%)
• Oppose: 15 (42%)

This leaves a question-mark hanging over the proposal to introduce one or two GAs per shift into DYK.

A subsequent RfC to replace the current DYK arrangements completely with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page appears unlikely to gain consensus.

The same is true of a proposal to simply remove DYK from the mainpage.

There remains an unresolved question I urge the community to focus on: Do the new reviewing and archiving arrangements now require the election/appointment of a directorate, or can we trust the experienced queuing admins to integrate them into their current role and manage them responsibly and fairly in their current role.

Comments by editors on these interpretations are welcome. Tony (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just to summarize my own views on these various proposals: firstly, I think the quality control checklist and the "directorate" proposals have some merit but are unworkable as originally proposed; I have proposed some refinements of these ideas in the section below. In regards to the seven-day archiving, it's poorly thought out and won't achieve anything but conflict in my view. In regards to the GA proposal, adding GA to DYK will just create more work for everyone, not less, so it's counterproductive; on top of which, many DYKs go straight onto GAN anyway, so there is nothing to stop eligible articles being promoted at DYK already. My final point is that all of these proposals were rushed forward to !votes with next to no prior discussion, so their results are unreliable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think some sort of last-line quality control is a good idea, though perhaps we could first try making it clearer to the admins who put the queues together that they are responsible for any issues in the hooks they use. Putting the responsibility in the hands that are on the levers makes sense. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'd better bring them into the conversations: Materialscientist, Bruce, Cas, et al. Gato, the reality is that the RfC on the explicit checklist and the seven-day archiving both gained strong consensus. In effect, they have to be implemented, as far as I understand it. Tony (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I think your understanding is deficient. Your polls are all plain violations of WP:POLL in just about every way imaginable. Apart from which, it's quite clear that many users who voted yes on the checklist - myself included - did so only with regard to the general principle and not for a specific format. As for the seven day window, it's plainly unfair, and in my view is just going to create misunderstandings and ill feeling as well as extra work for admins - not to mention the prospect of factions gaming it to get unwanted articles disqualified. It's ill-conceived and I think there are better alternatives. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

An alternative way forward

While I'm sure we could all do with a break after the discussion of the last few days, since some users have in my opinion rushed into making proposals without adequate prior debate, I feel obliged to make a proposal or two of my own lest others be adopted by default.

Firstly, I think it's become clear through this discussion that there are two conflicting schools of thought in regards to the future of DYK. The first wants to retain it more or less as is, but with improved quality control; the second is pushing for a completely new process in which relatively few but higher quality articles are featured. A lot more could be said about these two positions, but I think I will simply note that there appears to be no consensus to move to a completely new format at this time.

That effectively leaves us with looking at ways to improve the existing process. The critics have proposed two main methods: firstly, Tony's suggestion that the intial review process be made more thorough; and secondly Sandy's suggestion that administrators take more responsibility via a "directorate" of some kind. I think both these proposals have merit, but we lack the resources to implement either of them on the scale proposed.

My suggestion therefore is that we adopt the general thrust of these proposals, but on a scale we can realistically implement given the available manpower. I quite like Tony's idea of a more thorough initial review process but he is clearly envisaging a sort of GA-Lite process for which we lack the resources. As I've already suggested however, it shouldn't be too difficult to adopt the essential elements of Tony's proposal in a less ponderous form. What I am envisaging is a template something like the Wikiships assessment banner, which has a number of fields in which the assessor provides either a "y" or "n" response, on the basis of which the banner delivers a given rating. It seems to me we ought to be able to adopt a similar template that outputs a given DYK review icon (accept, reject, problem, query) based on the responses to the checklist. The checklist results could also be duplicated on a single line of text as a means of summarizing the problems, while a "comment" field could be used to provide further detail.

A system like this would take up scarcely more space on T:TDYK than is currently used in reviewing, which IMO is an important consideration. It would also help to remind reviewers of the issues they are expected to check, and it would make them more accountable for their failures. Some kind of sanction for sloppy reviewing would then become possible, which should go a long way toward ensuring that reviewers take their responsibilities seriously.

The second suggestion put forward in prior discussion is the notion of greater accountability at the admin level. Sandy has been the most vocal proponent of this method, arguing for a "directorate" where a group of admins take full responsibility for everything that appears on DYK. Again, the problem with this proposal is that we simply don't have the manpower to implement it.

While I have been largely inactive at DYK for the last six or seven months due to RL issues, I have nonetheless formed the impression that admins have come to rely too much on QPQ reviews and are not doing much if anything in the way of double checking updates for themselves. So this is another area where I think we can improve without unduly adding to the existing burden on DYK admins.

My proposal in this regard therefore is that admins moving an update from prep to the queue be obliged to sign a statement confirming that they have checked every article in the update to see that it meets minimal quality standards. Additionally, they should be obliged to confirm that they have checked each individual hook for grammatical and other issues. We can't expect DYK admins to thoroughly check every aspect of every article but a system like this should help prevent blatant errors slipping through.

I think the implementation of the two above proposals together should substantially improve the quality of the end product, which judging by many comments above has slipped in recent months. Please discuss. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, thanks for your comments, which have some merit. However, part of the scurrilous hidden agenda in my first RfC (checklist) is that reviewers and nominators actually talk to each other, and we take a little more time over the preparation/judgement process. I don't mind icons, but they are secondary to comments, especially if DYK is to fulfil its potential in mentoring, training, and encouraging newish editors (as MilHist does so well). A lot of people seem to think DYK is too rushed and ends up being superficial; and I'm unsure why there's a concern to take up no more "space" on the nom pages.

Your proposal that the queuing admins have to sign a statement saying they've basically done all of the reviewing themselves is a much greater burden than a directorate would normally face: directorates rely on reviewers, some of who will specialise in reviewing only some aspects of the noms. My impression of the queuing admins at DYK is that they're very good indeed: the logical thing is for them to get a take on the review(s) for each nom they consider putting into a prep area; at the very least, moving a nom to a prep area, whoever does it, should involve an assessment of the review(s). Tony (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Adding big templates might look impressive, but it's not necessarily going to improve the quality of the review. But what it is going to do is add considerably to page clutter. We seem to agree on the basic principle however, so perhaps the rest can wait for a discussion on specifics. You may have a point about assessing reviews - now that we have individual pages for nominations, that would certainly be easier to do. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Gatoclass wrote here. With regard to Gatoclass's admin sign-off, I suggest that this should somehow be logged on the subpage of each included article -- that will help to address Sandy's concern about accountability. If a hook/article is found to be problematic after reaching the Main Page, it will be as simple as glancing at the subpage to find out who approved it initially, who promoted it to prep, and then who promoted it from prep to queue. One other improvement I'd suggest is requiring two reviewers to approve a nomination before it can proceed from the nomination page to a prep area. This was discussed at the time QPQ was implemented, and I think it's time we take this step. By giving a second review in each case, we can not only better ensure that we are not passing inappropriate articles/hooks to the Main Page, but can also identify reviewers who may currently be rubber-stamping nominations. cmadler (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the point in double reviewing; it basically just makes QPQ redundant. If we went to double reviewing, we might as well just dump QPQ and go back to voluntary reviewing. However, I should also point out that my proposal does include a limited secondary review from an admin when moving updates to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Very happy for nominators fifth and beyond to QPQ review the clerical character-counting aspects (plus one more skilled one, if they can manage it). I'm not doing article vintage at the moment because I don't know how. Partial reviewing should be the expectation in many cases, I think. Tony (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see the point in doing "half reviews" and it would make QPQ pretty pointless. It would be nice however, to have some dedicated plagiarism and copyvio hunters, but we're unlikely to acquire any since it's a tedious chore that nobody wants to do. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony is coming up with some great ideas, I have a lot of respect for the way he is constructively moving forward.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominated my first subpage

Forgive me if I didn't read all the above, it's overwhelming. I just nominated my first subpage, successfully so, I hope. My observations: I had no problems to get to the template and fill it. I failed to see that I better copy the string to include it to the suggestions right there, and missed that option when I actually wanted to include. Next time I will know. I liked the different look of ALL CAPITAL in that template string and suggest to do it the same in the nomination template, for consistency. - I looked what a reviewer (highlighted box "nominator - reviewer") had to do differently after 14 July and found nothing, only differences for promoters and rejecters, perhaps that could be phrased more clearly? - For more comfort: could the template result in "expanded by ..." first and then "comment", then the comment could be continued more easily. - Sorry if some of this was said before, see above. I will return to creating content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Little thing: I wonder why there are four dots in the template in the hook before the question mark?

Big thing:

Thank you, great praise to you who made a smooth transition to a more transparent and safe system possible! (I can see fewer accidents, like inadvertently changing someone's nom.) What do you think of taking a link to the subpage to prep, so that reviewers who want to check prep had easy access to the review history? (Probably that was suggested before but s.a.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

About replacing the things that need to be filled in with capital letters in the Template:T:TDYK/preload...I considered that too, but I think it looks kind of shout-y (e.g. | article = ARTICLE TITLE IN PLAIN TEXT; [[ ]]), not sure if that bugs people.

As for the four dots in the template, I don't know, I just made it that way years ago; I don't think it matters because if the template is properly filled out those dots will never appear anywhere, they're supposed to be replaced by the hook.

As for putting the "created/expanded by X" message immediately after the hook (before the Comments: and Reviewed:) I originally did that to separate the nominator's comment at the time of nomination from other editors' comments will come later. I don't know if anyone thinks that matters or not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree now with your view of the CAP shouting. - I know one contributor who routinely changes "wrong" dots for ellipses, so I think to "teach" three might be a small good idea. - I typically need to change my own (nominator's) comment afterwards, should I do that above or under the "created/expanded", or doesn't matter? As the "created/expanded" comes with a date, I would think under, - that's why I asked. - I hope you also got the praise, not only the quibble? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3

Two of the model football players in the Score the Goals hook have gone missing. There are eight instead of ten in the hook. Also, none of the cited sources claim they are "models"; they are UN Goodwill Ambassadors. Now, perhaps that should carry some responsibility to be a role model, but I think the UN have wisely not mentioned that facet of the job. Yomangani^talk 14:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And there's an unnecessary comma in the David Olère hook. Yomangani^talk 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sure the ticketing system isn't making an effort to go green (unless it is part of an environmentally aware Skynet) Yomangani^talk 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And in Queue 6: RNA structures aren't "solved"; "determined" (as in the article) would be a better word choice. Yomangani^talk 14:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Solving a structure" is a standard phrase in science; changing it to "determined" is Ok, but this wasn't an error. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't pander to scientists. Yomangani^talk 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just made these changes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Updating the queues

How the heck do I go about doing that? There are three that are empty. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I am an idiot. Time to update stuff! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Optimalism

There's a hook in Prep Area 4 "... that Optimalism has health benefits and can be a learned skill?" Does anybody see the hook supported in the article? Yomangani^talk 23:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's title seems to be a misspelling. From my skim of it, the article seems to be about optimism. If this is the case, the article is also duplicating an existing article and should be redirected, with any new content merged over to there. I'm taking it out of the prep pending further discussion; I'll leave the actual AfDing to someone else, if anyone else agrees that this article should be AfDed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-do of the penultimate issue I brought to DYK, which is a failure to observe WP:MEDRS. Would anyone who understands DYK please provide a link showing who approved this hook and who moved it to prep? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So we can tar and feather them? Yomangani^talk 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not tar and feather, this should be looked at as a review of the process. But here's what happened. Created [21], Reviewed[22], moved to prep [23]

NB the editor who created this has less than 100 edits - clearly a new editor and DYK does a fantastic job of encouraging new editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, so we can drop them a note informing them of MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And who is going to review an article for compliance with WP:MEDRS or any other guideline outside the core? Certainly not some QPQ reviewer who might have written their first article today. All these proposals for directorates, checklists etc. don't scale either. I imagine they will wear the current reviewers down and drive them out, but not a lot else. Yomangani^talk 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about MEDRS, but I am concerned that the majority of sources do not even mention the word "optimalism". Bit difficult to accept them as sources really Worm^TT · (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec re @ Yoman) Right. DYK is not fixable, but QPQ reviewing is making it worse, and if the only way to fix it will drive people out, then it should be shut down. Anyway, Worm, thanks for doing that homework-- without archives, I don't know how to do it easily, and appreciate that you did it. I'm out of time today-- has anyone notified the three editors of the issue? So, we've got at least three editors who need to be informed on correct sourcing, and if DYK is to serve one of its alleged purposes of helping to create new content, it should be doing just that. At least one of those editors (Panyd) should know this darn well by now, as she is an established editor, and I've discussed with her before. Moral of the story-- nip these problems in the bud before DYK enables more faulty editing. This is NOT the first time we've had faulty medical statements at DYK (see my penultimate issue raised here in the last month or two). The good news here is that a knowledgeable experienced editor (Yoman) found this in the prep area and prevented it from being placed on the mainpage: if that were a regular occurrence, along with notifying editors of the mistakes along the way, methinks we would no longer have a long-standing DYK problem. Accountability at either the prep or queue level is missing. Archives will help nominators and reviewers alike learn from their mistakes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Panyd only moved it to prep. Having the admin recheck every article that they move to prep isn't going to work, and the turnover of editors and admins is too high to work these problems out of the system permanently anyway. DYK is fixable in my opinion, but not by attempting to make the review process more rigorous than FAC (where's the FAC checklist template?) Accept DYK for what it is: a shop-front for works in progress. Change "From Wikipedia's newest content:" to "From Wikipedia's newest content; these articles may need improving, correcting or deleting. If you'd like to help, pick one and start editing." Do a quick check that the articles don't obviously breach any core policies (just as you would on New Page patrol) and then tip them out on the main page for editors and potential editors to fix up. All you are doing then is sifting the new page creation list for articles that have potential. This is supposedly the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so why should the main page be filled only with content that discourages editing by its apparent completeness? (I use "apparent" advisedly as some absolute nonsense gets through DYK and remains unchallenged because it has superscript numerals nearby.) Encourage visitors to become editors by giving them something they might want to edit. Yomangani^talk 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)