Template talk:Did you know

DYK queue status

There are currently 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

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

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

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

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

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section	# of Hooks	# Verified
May 12	1
May 16	1
May 17	1	1
May 18	1
May 20	2
May 21	1
May 24	1
May 27	1
May 29	1
May 30	2
June 2	1
June 3	2	1
June 7	1
June 8	1
June 9	2
June 10	1
June 11	1
June 13	1
June 14	2
June 15	2
June 17	2
June 19	2	1
June 20	1
June 21	3
June 22	3	1
June 23	7	4
June 24	5	2
June 25	3	2
June 26	8	4
June 27	3	2
June 28	8	4
June 29	5	4
June 30	6	3
July 1	9	6
July 2	5	3
July 3	11	7
July 4	9	4
July 5	8	4
July 6	14	9
July 7	12	5
July 8	10	6
July 9	9	3
July 10	9	5
July 11	9	3
July 12	10	4
July 13	13	4
July 14	12	5
July 15	5	1
July 16	10	5
July 17	7
Total	244	103
Last updated 22:45, 17 July 2024 UTC Current time is 22:53, 17 July 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

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

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below).

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

• Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
• Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
• The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
• To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

  Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

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

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Advanced procedures

How to promote an accepted hook

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

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

Handy copy sources:

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

How to remove a rejected hook

• Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
• In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

• Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
• Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
  • View the edit history for that page
  • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
  • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
• Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
• If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

• Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

Nominations

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on May 12

Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that celebrations happened in the Gaza Strip after Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal?

• Source: [1], [2]

• ALT1: ... that Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal under which it would agree not to rebuild its military arsenal? Source: [3]
• ALT2: ... that CIA Director William J. Burns played a key role in drafting an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal that Hamas accepted? Source: [4] [5]
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Julius Welschof

Created by Vice regent (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

• The notability of the article is questionable. If the proposal is not implemented and is replaced by another proposal (which seems to be the case at the moment) do you think anyone will be remotely interested in this article a year from now? Vegan416 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I do think it’s a significant proposal that will continue to be mentioned years from now. For example, consider the Palestinian proposal at Camp David, which was eventually replaced by an Israeli proposal. Initial media coverage was mainly focused on the Israeli proposal, but as the years passed by academic literature began to pick up on the Palestinian proposal and we can see evidence of WP:SIGCOV in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2017 etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Issue with all 3 hooks: lack sufficient clarity that Israel did not agree (both before and after). Do you have an alternative suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

FortunateSons here is another suggestion:

• • ALT3: ... on May 31, Joe Biden presented a three-phase ceasefire proposal that was welcomed by Hamas but opposed by some members of the Israeli cabinet? Source: [6][7]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Vice regent This is definitely better, but I would like an uninvolved person to evaluate it. Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Issue with hook 2 (and maybe hook 3 as well): The claim may be factually incorrect or misleading. Another reliable source claims that Hamas is not ready to give up its weapons: ""Hamas will not surrender its guns or sign a proposal that asks for that,” Arab mediators said Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar told them in a brief message they received Thursday, as two top U.S. officials, including Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns, hold talks in the region aimed at jump-starting long-stalled negotiations." Vegan416 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • But the proposal is not asking for Hamas to give up its guns? In any case, joining two reliably sourced statements to come to a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. Do you have any reliable sources that directly state that Hamas has rejected this proposal? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• ALT4: ...that a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Joe Biden on May 31 was nearly identical to the one presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5?Source: [8]

Alt4 should be interesting and uncontroversial.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Article attributes, hook doesn't. This should be changed.--Launchballer 12:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• ALT5: ... that a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5 would consist of three stages? Source: [9]
  • @Launchballer: this hook should be pretty uncontroversial and should not need any attribution.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This is in the first bit of 'Proposals' and is a summary of that section's three subsections. Fine by me, an actual reviewer can adjudicate. Full review needed.--Launchballer 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This is currently the oldest fully unreviewed nomination and I need a QPQ, so I'm reviewing. Long enough, new enough. Hook checks out per my comment above. QPQ done. Earwig has no valid complaints. There were a few single-sentence WP:PARAGRAPHs and some content bordering on WP:PROSELINE; due to the age of this nom, I've fixed it myself. Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Under discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Israel–Palestine hook. Please continue that discussion here. Schwede66 01:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Continuing the thread from WT:DYK:

why is it relevant that ""article has changed considerably between the original nomination on 18 May and promotion to prep on 5 July""? @User:Launchballer reviewed it on 09:20, 5 July 2024 and presumably did not find any issues with it. – What had me concerned is the possibility of the political situation evolving such that the hook no longer reflects current events (per WP:DYKG). However, it does seem that the original proposal is still on the table [10], so that should be solvable by adding a source published more recently.

As for catchiness, I guess that's subjective. – I stand by my original comment, since I feel having three phases alone isn't a particularly unusual aspect of a plan, but I welcome alternative phrasings or opinions. ^Complex/_Rational 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: that's exactly why I chose ALT5. It is a historical fact that simply can't change due to any political developments. Even if the original proposal is no longer on the table, or this entire diplomatic process fails, I think this is still very much an encyclopedic article, for example consider the failed Camp David Summit (see the proposals listed there). As for catchiness, sure we can work on that. Some ideas, all of which are based on historic events that can't be changed:

• ALT6:that a three-stage ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5 would envisioned the release of all hostages by stage 2?
• ALT7:that the CIA was involved in the negotiations that lead to a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5?
• ALT8:a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5 was accepted the next day by Hamas?

Do any of those sound interesting? Can provide sources if interest is there.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: The most interesting and workable of these IMO is ALT7, with the small correction of "to the Israel-Hamas War" to "for the Israel–Hamas War".

I'm not as sure about the others. ALT8 might be confusing to some readers since the article later talks about yet-to-be-accepted proposals and could give a false impression that an end to the war is imminent. The idea behind ALT6 is good, though "by stage 2" contradicts the statement that hostages would be released during stage 2 (lead section, second paragraph), and "would envisioned" should be changed to "envision" (grammar, and better to say "the proposal envisions" because the proposal itself is not hypothetical). ^Complex/_Rational 21:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think any hook involving the CIA should mention the word 'director' for precision.--Launchballer 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that I-85 switches directions from milemarker 96 to 102 in Davidson County?

• Source:

• Reviewed:
• Comment: You're gonna have to zoom at least 75% into the map image to see the red line, which is I-85.

Improved to Good Article status by NoobThreePointOh (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

• It's not immediately obvious what you're talking about, and you should make it clear where this "Davidson County" place is for people who won't realize it's in North Carolina, USA. So ...

ALT1: ... that for six miles (9.6 km) in Davidson County, North Carolina, traffic on I-85 drives on the left?

I also wonder if you were able to find any explanation for this in your research. I think it's been noted elsewhere as the only significant place in the US with LHT. And maybe we should put that in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suppose that works. I'm just a little unsure about what hook exactly to choose. Yeah, I'll probably place it in the intro. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Let me review this. its new, long enough, QPQ not required, but I don't see the fact that it drives on the left anywhere in the article. I used 'Ctrl+F' for left and can only find one mention, and that is not even about the direction. JuniperChill (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, its there located just above Interstate_85_in_North_Carolina#Greensboro_to_Durham,its just worded slightly differently so I am giving it the go ahead. JuniperChill (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Unpromoted. Pulled per Special:Diff/1232390332. Note this is the second time this hook has been pulled, so sending it back to unapproved to get a good hard look. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: @BlueMoonset: @JuniperChill: For everyone here, this article had to be unpromoted from DYK due to the sourcing coming from Google Maps. After having found a much better source from NCDOT, which this article has a map, I'd like to get approval to see if it now meets the requirements for DYK. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  (drive by comment) I don't think "drives on the left" is an accurate description of what happens here. Especially with the link, this seems to indicate that left-hand traffic rules apply (instead, all that happens is that the two directions cross over each other). If we had true left hand traffic, each direction should have its shoulder and most exits on the left hand side. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and honestly as per my previous comment IMHO we need an explicit source saying it drives on the left rather than just inferring that from a map when nobody else has noted it. As such, the switch from Google maps to a NCDOT map doesn't really address this central concern. The map still only sources that they two roads cross over each other twice, not that it's a "drive on the left" area. Somewhere like the United States Virgin Islands, on the other hand, it's clearly sourced that they drive on the left.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I guess I've given up on the DYK nomination then. All that effort I put in for nothing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The reliability of GM is disputed, according to WP:RSP WP:GOOGLEMAPS. Its neither stated as reliable nor unreliable even after several discussions. But anyway It clearly shows that the I85 switches sides like a diverging diamond interchange without traffic lights. Since I am new to Wikipedia and DYK, I may as well leave it to another person to review/promote this hook. JuniperChill (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, Daniel Case, NoobThreePointOh, and JuniperChill: FWIW there is an article here - [11] which discusses this in detail. I suppose it's questionable whether the "North Carolina Rabbit Hole" is a reliable source, but the guy does seem to have done his research and interviewed the road's designer and suchlike, so interested on opinions on that?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Great find! I really like this concept of two rest stops in the middle that can be accessed by (normal) right exits. The author seems to be slightly more "independent journalist" than "blogger" but it isn't completely obvious why he passes our RS guidelines. If we trust his statement that there are almost no sources on this but do not trust his statement about the rest area, we won't be able to continue. —Kusma (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I started working my way through the article. To be honest, I have no idea how this passed GA; the sourcing is just abyssimal. For example, I'm looking at the first paragraph of "South Carolina to Charlotte". This entire paragraph is cited to map of Cleveland County which doesn't begin to say most of things the paragraph says. "from Cherokee County", as far as I can tell from the map, it's York County. "Most of the Interstate for its first few miles is generally rural in nature and remains four lanes." No clue how the map supports any of that. "which quietly merges onto I-85". Quietly? The map says quietly? "Interstate meets US 74 at a unique weave interchange" Unique? The maps says it's unique? "Both routes also enter Kings Mountain." Looking at the Google map, that does appear to be an accurate statement, but the cited NC DOT map certainly doesn't show it. But, to get to the matter at hand; the (supposedly) left-hand drive sections of I-85 The entire paragraph that contains this statement is cited to https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Documents/thumbs/Davidson.pdf, which doesn't even come close to supporing almost anything in that paragraph. "The landscape becomes more rural"??? "I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians"??? This really should have it's GA revoked as a defective review, but I just don't have the energy to file it. RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I found the energy: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 85 in North Carolina/1 RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith and NoobThreePointOh: What is the status of this review, given that the above GA has not been edited in over a week?--Launchballer 07:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I have finished editing the article. However, there are some last-minute citations that I need to get from @Bneu2013: in order to add them and see if the article does meet GA criteria. Unfortunately, I'm out of town without my computer until the 17th, and all of the info that I added is stored in it. The only thing I can do is get back on the 17th, head to my computer, and add the citations. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the issues I raised at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 85 in North Carolina/1 have not been addressed. I don't see how we can run this. RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, I really am not able to edit the article without my computer. As aforementioned, the information I wrote is in the edit phase, and I need the citations to officially finish it up. Now yes, I can understand if the article gets delisted, but IMO, I don't think it's necessarily fair due to me being unable to edit. If the article is going to get delisted, then I guess I just have to nominate it again after getting back. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Articles created/expanded on May 16

Baubau

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Baubau city filed two different budgets at the same time, resulting it to lose their chance at becoming capital of Southeast Sulawesi? Source: "Beberapa sebab terpilihnya Kota Kendari sebagai Ibukota Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara di antaranyakalah jumlah suara pada saat pemilihan untuk penentuan ibukota. Selain itu,terjadi malbirokrasi di mana ada dinas di Kota Baubau yang mengajukan anggaran dua versi dan yang mengajukan dua orang, sehingga terjadi dualisme dalam satu dinas. Akibatnya,kekacauan dalam sistem birokrasi dan tata pemerintahan sangat mungkin terjadi jika Kota Baubau menjadi ibukota provinsi. Oleh karena itu, Mendagri dan Otonomi Daerah dalam keputusannya mengesahkan Kota Kendari sebagai Ibukota Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara." Rabani, L. O., Purwanto, B., & Margana, S. (2020). Politik dan Ekonomi di Dua Kota: Baubau dan Kendari pada tahun 1950an–1960an. MOZAIK HUMANIORA, 20(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.20473/mozaik.v20i1.15746
  • ALT1: ... that Baubau city has a fortress made out of coral reefs and limestones? Source: "Benteng Wolio dibangun dengan bahan baku berupa batu karang, pasir, dan kapur. Dalam sistem pengetahuan setempat, bahan perekat material benteng menggunakan putih telur ayam." https://books.google.co.id/books?id=HRHszgEACAAJ&newbks=0&hl=id&redir_esc=y (Page 49)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Minnesota State Highway 36
  • Comment: Newly expanded 5 times, CE will be very appreciated thank you. Also special request to be posted on 29th July.

5x expanded by Nyanardsan (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 27 past nominations.

Nyanardsan (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

• Not a review, but special occasion requests for more than six weeks require consensus at WT:DYK. I'd also expect a more merciless prepbuilder to truncate ALT0 at 'time'.--Launchballer 18:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Nyanardsan: Please complete a QPQ, and link it above. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• QPQ added. I also would like to highlight my request once again. I am fine if it must go through consensus at WT:DYK and any modification/ALTs are also fine as long as it mentions the city's name. Nyanardsan (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• This is not a review but I would oppose the special occasion request. For one thing, the significance of the date is not even stated in the nomination, plus there is no mention of the date in the article. Thus it is not even clear what the significance of July 29 to the subject is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• I am currently unable to check for close paraphrasing as Earwig is currently rate limited, so this is only a preliminary review. I can verify that a 5x expansion was completed within seven days of the nomination, and that a QPQ has been provided. I have a slight preference for ALT0, but as Launchballer suggested it will probably need copyediting. Both hooks are cited inline and cited to Indonesian sources; AGF although Google Translate seems to verify the information. A QPQ has been provided. The primary issue with the article right now is that it is in need of a copyedit. The article is inconsistent with its use of quotation marks (some statements use single ones and others use doubles) and there are multiple grammatical errors in the article, mostly missing uses of "the". Asking Launchballer for help in copyediting, but otherwise the article can't run until that is completed. As for the special occasion request, given that the article was nominated outside six weeks, it needed an IAR exemption at WT:DYK, but that did not happen. However, I would oppose such a special occasion request for that date as it is not mentioned anywhere in the article and its significance to the subject is unclear. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this in the morning.--Launchballer 02:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added quite a few tags to this, and there may be more. I plan on giving this another pass, but this should take some of the edge off.--Launchballer 11:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nyanardsan: A few things; '98.45' is not a ratio; long strings of percentages such as the ones in Demographics would flow much better as a list; I found quite a few instances of claims being backed up by sources that can't possibly contain them, for example a 2022 source claiming something is as of 2023, and these will have to be remedied.--Launchballer 08:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

For the ratio, I clarified again. I was simply following the statistics document like always, mentioning gender ratio in that way. I disagree with the demographics section should be converted to list, it is fine as it is as prose. The unclarified sources one have been fixed (I apologize, it's mostly me forgetting to recite BPS documents which is used a lot), except for the fish export one which is correctly cited already by AntaraNews article Nyanardsan (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Who described the Buton Sultanate's political position as "like a shuttlecock"? This should be in the article. Also, ratios show quantities relative to each another and are usually written in the form a:b.--Launchballer 16:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nyanardsan: I asked for this a week ago. What's the holdup?--Launchballer 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the ratio part by linking it to the concept instead (again, I was just following the statistical document like I always did, feel free to clarify it to the BPS document directly), for the quotation part I think it's fine to just delete it entirely Nyanardsan (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded that bit to make it clearer. I think I'll pass you back to @Narutolovehinata5:.--Launchballer 05:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: You don't see any sourcing issues anymore? Because if not this can be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no qualms with the article; I note you said that you hadn't checked for close paraphrasing as Earwig was currently rate limited, however I can't see any sources that aren't offline or foreign, so I can AGF on them. @Nyanardsan: the hook says 'that Baubau city filed two different budgets at the same time, resulting it to lose their chance at becoming capital of Southeast Sulawesi' article says 'The decision to choose Kendari instead of Baubau was both the result of the city losing a public vote against Kendari 45-27 and of an incident where the city drafted two different budgets produced by two different officials at the same time, creating dualism in the city's bureaucracy.' (emphasis mine). These are not the same thing. If you're alright with the following:

ALT0a: ... that the city of Baubau once filed two different budgets at the same time?

ALT1a: ... that the city of Baubau has a fortress made out of coral reefs and limestones?

I'll go ahead and approve this.--Launchballer 09:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 17

Rashmika Mandanna

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Rashmika Mandanna made her debut in 2016 opposite Rakshit Shetty in the Kannada romance Kirik Party?
  • Reviewed:

Created by 19Arham (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

19Arham (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

• A new hook is needed here as the hook may not be interesting or understandable to a broad audience, particularly if the reader is unfamiliar with Shetty. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• @19Arham: Can you suggest some additional hooks below? Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• ALT1: ... that Rashmika Mandanna starred in the third highest-grossing Indian film of 2023 opposite Bollywood royalty, Ranbir Kapoor?

That doesn't seem to be much of an improvement, not to mention referring to Kapoor as "Bollywood royalty" could fall afoul of WP:WTA. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@19Arham: are there any other aspects of this article that could be a good hook? Proposing multiple hooks is more likely to get approved. @Narutolovehinata5: do you have any suggestions of interesting aspects in which to get a hook from? Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Bollywood so I'm probably not the best person to ask about this; besides, I didn't get much ideas from a quick skim of the article, but it could just be due to unfamiliarity with the subject. Launchballer has experience proposing ALTs for entertainers so maybe they'd have some ideas. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that Rashmika Mandanna was reluctant to accept her first Hindi cinema role as she disagreed with her character's views on spirituality? jumps out, although there may be others. Also @19Arham: I strongly recommend submitting an image with this nomination, as all of the images are Creative Commons.--Launchballer 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• ALT2 sounds good and can be reviewed, though if anyone has additional hook suggestions that's also appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly sure the whole article needs a review.--Launchballer 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the oldest fully unreviewed nomination and I need a QPQ, so I'm reviewing. Long enough, just about new enough at nine days. Earwig highlights a few phrases, but these appear to come under WP:LIMITED. No QPQ needed. Reviewer needed to approve my ALT2.--Launchballer 20:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer failed to note that the article was nominated as a new GA, which has been verified. ALT2 is cited inline, verified in the source, and interesting to a broad audience. The rest of the checks have already been done so this should be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 20

Praetoria of Constantinople

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Theodorus and Theophanes

• ... that in the Praetorium of Constantinople the brothers Theodorus and Theophanes (pictured) had twelve iambic verses branded on their forehead and torso?

• Source: Senina (2008), pp. 267-268

• Reviewed: Red Sea mangroves
• Comment: I will do the QPQ asap.

Created by Alessandro57 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 83 past nominations.

Alex2006 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

• @Alessandro57: You still need to provide a QPQ as it has been over two weeks since the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: you are right, sorry, QPQ done. Alex2006 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: AGF on non-English sources, although was able to verify the basic facts elsewhere. Only concern would be the last sentence of the introduction: "At least two buildings with this function existed in the city". It is unclear if this is talking about jails, or places where the prefect dispensed justice. @Alessandro57: - Are you able to address this? CSJJ104 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right, @CSJJ104:, it wasn't clear, thanks. Updated everywhere with sources. Alex2006 (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Reading this with the recent additions, is the article intended to cover both buildings, or just the one? If it's covering both then possibly it should be moved to Praetoria of Constantinople, otherwise the article should make clear which building it covers. CSJJ104 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hallo @CSJJ104:, your concern has been addressed: article moved to plural. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Performed a copyedit on the lead, but otherwise good to go. I assume good faith on the non-English sources. CSJJ104 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that I've nominated the image for deletion. All that means is that this can't become the lead hook; no other issues. Schwede66 06:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alessandro57 and CSJJ104: Senina 2008 pp.267–268 does not verify that the branding took place within the Praetoria, and as a translation of a primary source it is not a reliable source for the hook. Meanwhile, Janin 1950 is pushing the limits of WP:RSAGE, so unless it is watertight (could you please supply a quote that supports the hook) I think a new hook might be needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Also noting that the image was kept.--Launchballer 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: WP:RSAGE does not really apply here; this is a historical article, where the narrative part of history, which relies on medieval sources, is not liable to change much. The only developments could be the discovery and publication of major written sources or archaeological excavations, but the former hasn't been the case and the latter is unlikely to happen given that the sites lie at the heart of Istanbul, where only major infrastructure projects like the subway have led to extensive archaeological discoveries. In summary, Janin is still very much a WP:RS and valid for this topic, as can be seen by its still frequent use in 21st-century scholarly works. Constantine ✍ 10:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Cplakidas I trust your judgement re. RSAGE, but would still like to see a quote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not actually able to access Senina 2008 and didn't notice the issue. Can I check though, is your objection purely to its use to cite the hook, or should the article also be updated? CSJJ104 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your supplement of review and your comments, @AirshipJungleman29: , @CSJJ104: ,@Cplakidas:.Unfortunately I find myself since a week in the Poli and I have neither a PC with me(I am writing on a phone :-((() nor Janin (btw, for this article I have been forced to use the 1950 edition because the 1964 revised edition was borrowed by someone else). I agree with Constantine that for this kind of articles one has to rely heavily upon the primary sources, because it is all that we have. Anyway, I added another online secondary source to the text (Abschnitt V.17, unfortunately in German), and I hope that this will solve the problem. Cheers from Istanbul, Alex2006 (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely can't work out what this needs another reviewer for.--Launchballer 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hallo @Launchballer:, does not it mean that the issue has been addressed? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that symbol is used when either a second opinion is sought (e.g. Yang Jingru (speed skater)) or new reviewer is requested such as for the reviewer's hook (e.g. Jump (Tyla, Gunna and Skillibeng song)). What you need in this instance is for @AirshipJungleman29: to confirm whether he is satisfied with the sourcing.--Launchballer 19:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I used ping, but none came til now...Alex2006 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No Alessandro57, the De Gruyter source still does not verify the hook. To repeat what I said above, it needs to verify "that the branding took place within the Praetoria". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

... mmmh, in this case I propose the following hook:

ALT1: ... that in the Praetorium of Constantinople the Eparch ordered the brothers Theodorus and Theophanes (pictured) to be branded with twelve iambic verses on their forehead and torso?

What do You think about it, AirshipJungleman29? Alex2006 (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Still not verified by the source, unless I have missed the relevant sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Jump (Tyla, Gunna, and Skillibeng song)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tyla (left) and Gunna (right) filming the music video for "Jump" in South Africa

• ... that a fusion of international talent "Jump" by South African singer Tyla, American rapper Gunna and Jamaican singer as well as rapper Skillibeng is a collaborative song which blends Tyla's melodious vocals, Gunna's rap prowess, and Skillibeng's dancehall flair, marking a vibrant cross-genre collaboration that's making waves globally? Source: ' ' 'Source:' ' '
• For 6 consecutive weeks, the song has maintained the number one position on the UK's biggest premier chart for afrobeats songs, which ranks them according to sales and streams over a 7 day period: [12]
• American rapper Gunna and South African singer Tyla traveled to Johannesburg, South Africa, Tyla's hometown, to film the official music video: [13]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: "Jump" by Tyla, Gunna and Skillibeng achieved remarkable success, reaching the number 1 spot on The UK’s biggest Afrobeats songs chart for six consecutive weeks. The collaboration between American rapper Gunna , Jamaican musician Skillibeng and South African singer Tyla, filmed in Johannesburg, South Africa, showcases the global appeal and cross-cultural influence of contemporary music. The song's popularity underscores the growing recognition and appreciation of African music on an international scale. "Jump" exemplifies the fusion of diverse musical styles and talents, resulting in a chart-topping hit with widespread appeal. "Jump" has earned millions of streams and downloads worldwide since its release.

Created by Qaqaamba (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Qaqaamba (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

• Hooks should contain a bolded link to the article and be under 200 characters long, so I've struck it. Please propose something much shorter.--Launchballer 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that "Jump" is a cross-genre collaboration blending South African singer Tyla's vocals, American rapper Gunna's trap, and Jamaican musician Skillibeng's dancehall? "Jump" stands out as the sole hip hop or trap and dancehall infused song on Tyla's eponymous debut studio album, Tyla. Qaqaamba (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

162 characters after adding an oxford comma, which I have added to the article title. Full review needed.--Launchballer 14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that "Jump" is a cross-genre collaboration blending singer Tyla's vocals, American rapper Gunna's rap and Jamaican musician Skillibeng's, dancehall? Qaqaamba (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

ALT3:… that "Jump" was the only trap-infused recording on Tyla? dxneo (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Qaqaamba and Dxneo: As per WP:DYKINT, the hook should be "perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest." Might I suggest something maybe to do with the "Haibo!" adlib, the famous Hillbrow Tower in the video, or perhaps the viral "they ain't never had a pretty girl from..." trend? —cybertrip👽 ( 💬 • 📝) 08:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Qaqaamba, Dxneo, and Cybertrip: I was going to propose "that two of the places referenced in Tyla's "Jump" are the same place", except it doesn't check out to the cited source. Can this be remedied?--Launchballer 13:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I added it myself.--Launchballer 10:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is currently the oldest fully unreviewed nomination and I need a QPQ, so I'm reviewing. Long enough, new enough (though I'll admit to doing a double take when DYKcheck told me 'promoted to GA on June 6' when this was created on 15 May). No maintenance templates deserved, no QPQ incurred, no copyright complaints. I fear that the image may divert readers into Tyla's and Gunna's articles, so I won't approve it. As previously suggested, I am proposing ALT4: ... that two of the places referenced in Tyla's "Jump" are the same place? and will call for a new reviewer.--Launchballer 11:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 21

Voluntary war

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with a beautiful woman who had been taken captive?
• ALT1: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to rape and forcibly marry a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?

• Source: Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 228–229 (s.v. מלחמה). OCLC 54817857.; Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 21b–22a

• Reviewed:

Created by Davidbena (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Davidbena (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC).

• Drive by comment: "forcibly have marital relations" should either be changed to "rape and forcibly marry" or attributed to a source, this is far too euphemistic to have in Wikipedia's voice. Rusalkii (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change, although I do think that it is a bit too strong.Davidbena (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how the word "rape" can be in the hook if it isn't in the article. I also think "traditional" may be misleading, unless they are still in effect or only recently stopped being active laws; if they haven't been in effect for hundreds or even thousands of years, then that should be clear as well. Note to Davidbena: rather than edit hooks in situ, please show any revised wordings as an alternate hook (i.e., ALT1, ALT2). I've done so to restore your original hook and show the requested revision as ALT1. Thanks. Also, don't forget to supply your QPQ review (see WP:QPQ); you're supposed to do so within seven days of nominating, and definitely within seven days of being reminded to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:, thanks for your comment. Sometimes it is common practice among writers to use "euphemisms" in Belles-lettres and in prose, rather than use a word having the exact same meaning, but viewed as repugnant (e.g. "to forcibly have marital relations" instead of writing "to rape"). Would it help if I put, in the article, the word "rape" in parentheses, immediately following the words "to forcibly have marital relations"? If so, an alternate reading of the hook can be this:

• ALT2: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with (i.e. rape) a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?

 Done - Davidbena (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Alt3 (see below) is my preferred hook, as it clarifies everything. I will also go ahead and add "rape" in the main article. As for your question about use of the word "traditional," the word is still applicable today, since Jews in Israel recognize these ancient customs as being bona-fide Jewish traditions. They, in fact, could still be upheld today if we had an active Sanhedrin, which, in this case, we don't. Another option might simply be to write, instead of "traditional," the word "obsolete." This word, however, is tricky, because if the Sanhedrin were ever to be reinstated, these laws of warfare would still be applicable today. See, for example, Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Finally, I do not understand what you mean by saying that I must supply my QPQ review. Give me time to read-up on this.Davidbena (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have nominated four articles on "Did you know...", and this present article, if accepted, will be my fifth. The rules in WP:QPQ state that if I've nominated 5 or more articles, only then would I be required to work on the nomination of another person's DYK. I take that to mean that I can begin doing that now. Okay, no problem.Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:, I have begun the review process of the DYK article here.Davidbena (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: and @Rusalkii:, this is to remind you that I have just concluded the work on another author's DYK (see Talk:Architects' Tombs), in order to qualify for approval of my own DYK. Hope that things can be expedited here.Davidbena (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• ALT3: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to rape and forcibly have marital relations with a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war? The Talmud (Kiddushin 21b) calls this act a concession to man's evil inclination.
• Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This feels like a walking time bomb and shouldn't be run. At least, as long as we're rejecting Template:Did you know nominations/Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I, personally, would not draw a connection between the article that you mentioned above and this article, here, for the very reason that this article speaks about the laws of warfare in ancient Israel, at a time when there used to be a Sanhedrin. A brief reminder of Wikipedia guidelines for DYK state: "Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area" (End Quote). Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
      • It's certainly interesting – and as someone who was raised Orthodox Jewish herself, I'm well aware of the anachronism. Most people aren't, though, and at the end of the day, it's not about what's exactly said – it's about what message people think we're trying to send by choosing to run certain hooks. Sadly, I remain opposed to an otherwise fine-looking hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
        • @Theleekycauldron:, would it at all help if we added the caveat that, according to Jewish law (Talmud, Sanhedrin 59a), the laws pertaining to a ‘beautiful captive woman’ apply only to the men of Israel, but do not apply to gentile soldiers? In this sense, women are still protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces (The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 [in Articles 13 to 16]). While unto the men of Israel, the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers are immutable, without the Sanhedrin, this law would not apply today. And even when it did apply, the concession was made only after the fact that, in warfare, a soldier would have given vent to his passions anyway, whether he was allowed to do so or not, and the Torah wanted the men of Israel to be blameless, therefore, it excused the first act of passion. The conceptual-jurisprudential question that may be asked by students of International law is whether or not these laws pertain only to the inner circle of Jews when it comes to conquest by war, or can we say that these laws apply also to the Gentiles although they do not see themselves related to the Jewish law, as they have no access to it, nor do they have any say in the matter. In reply to this question the answer is, unequivocally, "No, they do not apply to non-Israelite armies". Davidbena (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• @DYK admins: , Your views on this, please.Davidbena (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Considering current world-context, I think the hook is a no-go; if a less controversial hook could be found, that would be better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • @AirshipJungleman29: Okay, since that makes two people here that hold to that view, I would be willing to change the hook to read as follows:
• ALT4: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a religious Jewish soldier to abandon the Kosher dietary laws of the Jewish nation and to eat Terefah (non-Kosher foods) when engaged in warfare and there was Kosher food scarcity?

• Source: Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 228–229 (s.v. מלחמה). OCLC 54817857.; Maimonides (2016). Mishneh Torah by Moses Maimonides (Book of Shoftim) (in Hebrew). Vol. 14. Jerusalem; Bnei Brak: Shabse Frankel. p. 269 (Hil. Melekhim 8:1). OCLC 989980005.

-Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Far too long (see WP:DYK200) and rather repetitive. Also, parentheses aren't allowed in a hook. Significant trimming or a new hook needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, Okay, I'll reword the hook. How does this one sound?

• ALT5: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to abandon the Kosher dietary laws and to eat non-Kosher foods during war?

• Source: Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 228–229 (s.v. מלחמה). OCLC 54817857.; Maimonides (2016). Mishneh Torah by Moses Maimonides (Book of Shoftim) (in Hebrew). Vol. 14. Jerusalem; Bnei Brak: Shabse Frankel. p. 269 (Hil. Melekhim 8:1). OCLC 989980005.

-Davidbena (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

How about adding some intrigue to this: ALT5a: ... that in certain circumstances Jewish soldiers may abandon Kosher dietary laws?--Launchballer 13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer:, Yes, of course, that is an excellent idea! People will click onto the link right away!Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Are these the only circumstances in which abandoning the kosher laws is permitted? If not, the link becomes rather MOS:EGGy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, these are extenuating circumstances. The only other time when Jews can eat non-Kosher foods, including ordinary people that are not soldiers, is when they are faced with famine and if they do not eat the non-Kosher animal they would surely die of starvation. In all commandments a Jew may transgress in order to save his own life, except in three things: 1) to murder someone; 2) to worship idolatry; and 3) to engage in a forbidden sexual act.Davidbena (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Would ALT5b: ... that there is a circumstance in which Jewish soldiers may abandon Kosher dietary laws? solve the problem?--Launchballer 22:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer:, Yes, that is a better way of wording it.Davidbena (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I still prefer this DYK over all the rest:

ALT6: ... that there is a circumstance in which it was permissible for Jewish soldiers to abandon the Kosher dietary laws and to eat non-Kosher foods?Davidbena (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Davidbena, ALT6 only works if it is no longer permissible today under any circumstances. Also, the hook wording is a bit convoluted and unnecessarily lengthy. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:, as I said, there are other instances where a Jew is permitted to eat non-Kosher foods, such as when he is faced with a choice between life and death; life if he eats the non-Kosher food, and death from famine if he declines it. I think that we have remedied the problem by simply saying "there is a circumstance," which does NOT exclude all other circumstances. You see, it still works. Am I missing something? As for making the DYK more concise and less wordy, we can do so. I'll work on it. How does this sound? ALT7: ... that there is a rare circumstance in which it was permissible for Jewish soldiers to abandon the Kosher dietary laws? ---Davidbena (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What is your opinion of ALT5b BlueMoonset?--Launchballer 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any objection to ALT5b. However, since ALT7 still uses "was permissible" which implies it isn't permissible any longer; as far as I can tell from the article, it's still permissible as of the present day, so I don't understand why "was" is in the ALT7 hook. For that matter, the entire phrase "it was permissible for" could be removed entirely and "are allowed" inserted before "to" (which is very similar to ALT5b):

• ALT7a: ... that there is a rare circumstance in which Jewish soldiers are allowed to abandon the Kosher dietary laws?

—BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:, I have no objection to ALT7a, and the only reason why I worded the former DYK as "was permitted", rather than "is permitted," is because the laws governing a Voluntary war in Israel only pertain to when there is an active Sanhedrin. Since there is no Sanhedrin today, the entire body of laws governing such a war do not apply today. The matter is merely a technical issue.Davidbena (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Not seeing a review on this page, which means this would be the oldest fully unreviewed nomination and I need a QPQ, so I'm taking it. Long enough, new enough. All the facts in ALT5b are also in ALT5, so I could review it, and (if I'm interpreting it correctly) it checks out to "Soldiers taking part in the war effort, in the event of food scarcity, are permitted to eat of animals that have been improperly butchered, and even to feast on the 'necks of swine'". Earwig is nice and quiet and the QPQ has been done. There are an awful lot of WP:CLUMPs in the article, and parts of the prose could be tidied up; as an example, WP:BULLET lists should be one sentence. Ping me when you're done and I'll take another look.--Launchballer 15:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer:, In accordance with your directives, I have reduced the bullets to one sentence, and I have eliminated the clutter, in accordance with the rules of WP:CLUMP. Please feel free to comment if there is anything else that I must do.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Much better, although I've just noticed there's quite a lot of stuff in the lead which isn't in the body. Leads should summarise the rest of the article and should not contain new content. I think this should be moved.--Launchballer 11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 27

Kaur (short film)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the British short film Kaur, a Sikh father does not approve of his daughter wearing a turban?

• Source: ""Kaur" told the story of a Sikh woman who chose to defy her father's wishes by wearing a turban."...[14]

• Reviewed: William Post
• Comment: Still have a bit more work to do on it

5x expanded by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 197 past nominations.

Whispyhistory (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC).

• A new hook has to be proposed as the current one does not meet WP:DYKFICTION. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• ALT1... that the British short film Kaur (2022), toured Gurudwaras, festivals and universities in the UK before appearing on ITVX, BritBox and then Netflix? Whispyhistory (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not so sure if this works either. @Launchballer: What do you think? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Parentheses aren't allowed per WP:DYK200, and I think 'ITVX, Britbox and then Netflix' is pure namedropping (and it should really be 'Britbox, and'). I'll take a look when I get back, but I'd be inclined to take a rewritten version of ALT1, like so: ALT1a: ... that prior to appearing on video-on-demand services, the 2022 short film Kaur had toured festivals, universities, and gurdwaras? Also, is there a difference between 'gurdwara' and 'gurudwara'?--Launchballer 11:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I just had a flick through the references. Per ref #3, there's a hook in some variant of ... that Dr Parvinder Shergill became so fed up of waiting for another film to be led by a Sikh woman that she co-wrote and co-produced her own?.--Launchballer 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both... I'll work on it... sounds good. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• ALT2... that British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill could not find a recent mainstream English film led by a woman that looked like her so she co-wrote and co-produced her own?Actor, writer and producer Parvinder Shergill...she's had to wait too long to see movies featuring women who look like her....Bend it like Beckham, 20 years ago, was the last mainstream film to feature women from her background...She co-wrote and co-produced it ...[15][16] Whispyhistory (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reads a bit breathless. I'm going to suggest:

ALT2a... that after British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill could not find a recent mainstream English film led by a woman that looked like her, she co-wrote and co-produced her own?

...and call for a full reviewer.--Launchballer 21:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 28

List of historic places in Kaikōura District

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that carpenter Cumming "Cum" Haswell erected a historic villa, later described as "modestly-scaled but ornamental"?

• Source: https://www.heritage.org.nz/list-details/1457/House

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Metaphysics

Created by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 51 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

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

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

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - perhaps state that Haswell was a carpenter, as he could have just been the owner? Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Oops, didn't see this until now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All good now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

---

@Generalissima, Peacemaker67, and Premeditated Chaos: per a discussion at WT:DYK, I'm reopening this one. New hook needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Okie dokie.

• ALT1: That the historic Collins' Bakery (pictured) in Kaikōura, New Zealand was purchased and closed down by a rival bakery?

Collin's Bakery, Kaikōura

Source: https://www.heritage.org.nz/list-details/1456/Collins%27%20Bakery%20Complex%20%28Former%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalissima (talk • contribs)

Articles created/expanded on May 29

Rhapsody (climb)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Rhapsody follows the thin diagonal crack in the middle of the northwest face of Dumbarton Rock

• ... that when first climbed in 2006, Rhapsody became the first-ever E11-graded traditional rock climbing route?

• Source: https://www.climbing.com/news/mcclure-bags-third-ascent-of-rhapsody-e11-7a/

• Reviewed:

Created by Aszx5000 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Aszx5000 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC).

• Not really sure if this particular hook fact or wording is the best option here. It's really reliant on specialist information, specifically a grade of rock climbing that isn't even a universal or international one. My suggestion would be, if possible, to propose a hook that could be easily understood even by non-rock climbers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "... that when first climbed in 2006, Rhapsody was the hardest traditional climbing route in the world?", with sourcing here Last year he succeeded in making what is generally recognised as the world's hardest 'traditional' climb, Rhapsody, on Dumbarton Rock from the BBC, and Rhapsody is officially known as the world's hardest traditional rock climb from Telegraph. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a much better hook. This is ready for a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I am doing a GA review of this article. If passed, I would recommend passing the DYK hook as well. xq 11:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

48JCL, please note that the GA reviewer may not also review the DYK nomination. Different reviewers are required per DYK rules. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: sorry, that is not what I meant for my comment to go for. I meant to say that a spotcheck was not needed as I did one in the GAR. 48JCL 13:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

48JCL, even so, that's still not appropriate. The DYK reviewer needs to do their own checking independent of the GA review, and should take nothing for granted by the fact that it achieved GA status or that some other reviewer approved parts of its review. There have been some GAs that ended up being delisted based on significant issues found by the subsequent DYK reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Full review needed now that new hook has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 30

Felix Eberty

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1846 book The Stars and World History by Felix Eberty, which contemplated a faraway observer seeing "the earth at this moment as it existed at the time of Abraham", inspired a young Albert Einstein?

• Source: "By the time that Felix Eberty, a German jurist and amateur astronomer, anonymously published “The Stars and World History,” in 1846, it was well known that light had a finite speed... Eberty was particularly fascinated by what this delay meant for a faraway observer of our planet. Perched on a distant star, he wrote, such a person might “see the earth at this moment as it existed at the time of Abraham.” Furthermore, by hopscotching across the cosmos, “he will be able to represent to himself, as rapidly as he pleases, that moment in the world’s history which he wishes to observe at leisure.” Eberty had witnessed great gains in the speed of transportation and communication during his lifetime, and he believed that humanity might soon be travelling even faster than light.

Among the impressionable young Germans who read Eberty and Bernstein was one named Albert Einstein."

The New Yorker

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Penguin History of Modern China

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 134 past nominations.

Thriley (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

• The article is sufficiently long and new, has citations throughout, and appears to be written neutrally. I AGF on offline and German language sources. QPQ is done. There is some trouble in the references with a citation template, and then there's the matter of the hook. The hook says Eberty "inspired" Einstein, but the above quote does not verify that, only that Einstein read Eberty. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Felix Eberty self-portrait circa 1850

• ALT1... that the 1846 book The Stars and World History by Felix Eberty, which contemplated a faraway observer seeing "the earth at this moment as it existed at the time of Abraham", was read by a young Albert Einstein? Thriley (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Erdős–Moser equation

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that all solutions of the Erdős–Moser equation correspond to convergents of ln(2), yielding "one of very few instances where a large scale computation of a numerical constant has an application"?
• ALT1: ... that the only known solution to the Erdős–Moser equation is 1 + 2 = 3?

• Source: [17]

The support for the hook is in the article's abstract.

• • Reviewed:

5x expanded by LucasBrown (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

LucasBrown 11:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC).

• Pinging David Eppstein if he could contribute to the nomination (either as a reviewer or to suggest hooks) as the current hook seems very specialist or complex and thus may not be easily understood by general readership. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note that the article would be better with a bit more prose to contextualize what is going on here. Currently the article itself is very inaccessible to the average reader, it would be nice to have a background of why this equation is important (I see the term "Diophantine equation" being used, maybe you could include a few sentences on how this relates to the article) and some prose (as opposed to proofs) to convey the methods being used to solve it. Sohom (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

According to our DYK rules, "Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". I don't think that is the case for the proposed hook. Also, I think the hook is misleading: as far as we know, it could be the case that all solutions of the equation are the single solution 1+2=3, unrelated to the log(2) calculation. And calling this an "application" is dubious when it is just a mathematical calculation used to support another mathematical calculation. I have generally interpreted this rule as requiring that the hook connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond mathematics (just as we require that hooks about fiction connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond the plot). Unfortunately I see no non-mathematics at all in the article, on which to build a hook. It's kind of interesting to me that the known lower bound on a second solution is such a huge number, but I don't think I represent a general reader for this purpose. I do also agree that the walls of equations make the article hard to read (not just to the average reader), but that is not really a DYK criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, as a non-math guy, this hook is remarkably uninteresting. Though that is obviously my opinion, it shows that it is likely not a suitable one, or the article as a whole as a matter of a fact. TheBritinator (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "... that the only known solution for the Erdős–Moser equation is "1 + 2 = 3" ? DS (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better. It still doesn't relate to non-mathematics at all, but at least it's (1) at a level understandable to the general reader, and (2) kind of intriguing how something so basic-looking as 1+2=3 could be the basis of something where we don't know if there is another solution. The question is whether it's enough better to pass the interestingness test. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think that's better. I was going to suggest something like "... no one knows whether the Erdős–Moser equation has more than one solution". XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added the 1+2=3 hook to the list. - LucasBrown 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 is brilliant! Schwede66 04:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Full review needed now that additional hooks have been suggested. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on June 3

Over the Hill with the Swords of a Thousand Men (The Boys episode)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that writers for "Over the Hill with the Swords of a Thousand Men" researched the experiments of Nikola Tesla for the use of Stormfront's lightning in the episode?

• Source: https://deadline.com/2021/06/vfx-stephan-fleet-the-boys-amazon-prime-emmy-1234771250/

• Reviewed:

Created by TarheelBornBred (talk) and Ulises1126 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

TarheelBornBred (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

• Passerby comment (this is not a full review, feel free for others to take this nomination to review): to a reader without context not familiar with characters in the show, "Stormfront's lightning" will read weirdly, like a misspelled comment on the brightness of the Stormfront website. "Researched" is also a bit high-falutin', it's not like they actually did some physics research for the episode - the source quotes them as saying "we looked at Nikola Tesla". Maybe something like:
  • ALT1: that writers for "Over the Hill with the Swords of a Thousand Men" were inspired by the experiments of Nikola Tesla for depicting a lightning attack in the episode?
  • ALT2: that writers for the episode "Over the Hill with the Swords of a Thousand Men" were inspired by the experiments of Nikola Tesla for depicting a lightning attack used by the malicious superheroine Stormfront?
• ALT2 includes Stormfront still if desired, but clarifies that it's talking about a character not the website. SnowFire (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Inauguration of Lai Ching-te

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Lai Ching-te's inauguration

• ... that China launched a joint military exercise in response to Lai Ching-te's inauguration?

• Source: AP

• ALT1: ... that members of the Kuomintang refused to attend Lai Ching-te's inauguration after losing by 10 percent? Source: Radio Taiwan International
• Reviewed:
• Comment: First time here at DYK, please correct me if I make any mistakes, thanks!

Created by CanonNi (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

• It looks like this meets the DYK requirements as far as length and timing. The sources look good. I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's approach to this topic area, but have you reviewed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles? I don't personally see any issues but I wanted to at least do my diligence. Once we figure that out, each hook should also add a little more context for the average reader, explaining a bit more of the who / where. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• @CanonNi: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720:, thanks for the ping. Honestly, I kinda forgot about this nomination... @Shooterwalker: thanks for the feedback. I've reviewed the MOS and think that the article and hook meet the guidlines and would be happy to fix any mistakes. About the context, I agree, so maybe we could change it to something like "...that China launched a military exercise in response to the inauguration of Lai Ching-te as president of Taiwan? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's go with the hook as you rewrote it:

ALT1a: "... ...that China launched a military exercise in response to the inauguration of Lai Ching-te as president of Taiwan?".

I don't see any other issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Shooterwalker: Do you approve the nomination? If so, please add the green tick below. If not, what else is needed to get this approved? If you haven't conducted a review yet, and do not intend to, please add the red arrow, indicating that a "new reviewer is needed" below. Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• The nomination is ready to proceed. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 7

Better Off Dead?

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a reviewer called a documentary on assisted suicide "so funny"? Source: "What I wasn't expecting was for it to be quite so funny." Better Off Dead review – a powerful (and funny) case against assisted dying
  • ALT0a: ... that a reviewer did not expect a documentary on assisted suicide to be so funny?
  • ALT1: ... that a reviewer said that Better Off Dead? "unnerves you so much you half-wish you hadn't seen it"? Source: "Every so often, a documentary comes along that unnerves you so much you half-wish you hadn't seen it." The week in TV: Better Off Dead?; Bridgerton; The Gathering; The Big Cigar – review
  • ALT2: ... that in Better Off Dead?, there is an automated hotline for assisted suicide? Source: "We hear the automated voice message on the 24-hour Maid hotline that those seeking to die can call." Better Off Dead? review – Liz Carr’s blistering film may well change your mind about assisted dying
  • Reviewed: Grant Hermanns

Moved to mainspace by Sdrqaz (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC).

• no issues with the article. original hook is bad, taking a quote out of context. alt1 is boring. alt2 is confusing, and made me think that there was a hotline you could call in the documentary. ltbdl (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Rating this article as a Start seems ... pretty low (is it "developing but still quite incomplete"?). If I may be frank, this review is seems a little harsh. ALT0 was not taken out of context: the reviewer is saying that the documentary was funny, no (see the quote)? I don't know how to address the charge of ALT1 being boring (I thought that something being unnerving and making a reviewer regret watching was interesting), and as for ALT2, I don't really follow: I believe that they did call the hotline in the documentary. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  of course the review is harsh, this is going on the main page. as for alt2, the wording is unclear. perhaps say something like "they call an automated hotline"? ltbdl (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've added ALT0a, which hopefully addresses the concern of "original hook is bad, taking a quote out of context", given that it is the same formulation as the source. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  My 2c: I'd paraphrase so funny to hilarious instead of writing it in Wikipedia's voice; see MOS:QUOTEPOV. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and Ltbdl: My interpretation of QUOTEPOV was that attribution was preferred in this instance as "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation" (second paragraph). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Right, which is why it should be directly attributed to The Times instead of referring to the publication as merely the reviewer, and so funny should neither be quoted nor written in Wiki's voice since it creates POV issues either way:

  • ALT0b: ... that a reviewer did not expect a documentary on assisted suicide would be that hilarious?

  hilarious should be neutral enough with attribution to the source, IMO. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and Ltbdl: I don't understand how hilarious is more neutral than funny, given that funny seems like a not overly emotive ... simple descriptive term. I also do not think that it is necessary to mention which source that is in the hook, given that it goes against much of established practice – if you see theleekycauldron's essay (and its application of WP:WEASEL), the addition of "a reviewer" is already more than what is necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz: Except the reviewer didn't just say funny but so funny, which is near-synonymous with hilarious; the latter can just be as neutral with proper attribution to the speaker. I concede to the "reviewer" bit, tho; I've slightly modified my alt suggestion to reflect this.Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but the issue with ALT0b's that is that it's comparable to the so in the actual source: by changing so funny to that hilarious, you're actually changing the degree of humor (yes, I can't believe that I am saying this) to so so funny.

  New review of the hooks requested, given ltbdl's inactivity on this; other parts of the review have been completed. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

my opinion still stands. anyway, if you have to run this article, run alt1. ltbdl (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would still prefer a new review of the hooks. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

See also: WP:SOHA

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

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

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

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