... that the British National Hospital Service Reserve(poster pictured) trained volunteers to carry out first aid in the aftermath of a nuclear or chemical attack?
This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section (reproduced on the right) on the Main Page. Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old; for details see these rules.
List new suggestions here, under the date the article was created or expanded (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. If a suitable image is available, place it immediately before the suggestion. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged.
contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). This is a mandatory minimum; in practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
cite their sources (these sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header); and
be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles whose number of characters have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable).
Articles on living individuals must be carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
Articles with good references and citations are preferred.
To count the number of characters in a piece of text, you will need to use a JavaScript extension like User:Dr pda/prosesize.js (instructions on the talk page), a free website like this, or an external softwareprogram that has a character-counting feature. For example, if you are using Microsoft Word, select the text from the article page (or, in the case of "Did you know" nominations, this Talk page) – not the edit page containing Wikitext – then copy and paste it into a blank document. Click "Tools" ("Review" in Office 2007), then "Word Count", and note the "Characters (with spaces)" figure. Other word processing programs may have a similar feature. (The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles, and comments and signatures in hooks on this page.)
Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
interesting to draw in a variety of readers,
short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely-licensed pictures;
attractive and interesting, even at a very small (100px-wide) resolution;
already in the article; and
relevant to the article.
formatted as [[Image:image name |right|100x100px| Description]] and placed directly above the suggested fact.
Proposed lists should have two characteristics to be considered for DYK: (i) be a compilation of entries that are unlikely to have ever been compiled anywhere else (e.g. List of architectural vaults), and (ii) have 1,500+ character non-stub text that brings out interesting, relational, and referenced facts from the compiled list that may not otherwise be obvious but for the compilation.
Please sign the nomination, giving due credit to other editors if relevant. For example:
*... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
*... that (text)? -- new article self-nom by ~~~~
*... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]] and ~~~~
*... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
*... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by ~~~~
*... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]] and ~~~~
When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|September 16}} Thanks, ~~~~
If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:
Symbol
Code
Ready for DYK?
Description
{{subst:DYKtick}}
Yes
No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}
Yes
Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted on good faith
{{subst:DYK?}}
Query
An issue needs to be clarified before the article's eligibility can be determined
{{subst:DYK?no}}
Maybe
Article is currently ineligible but may only need some minor work to fix.
{{subst:DYKno}}
No
Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible
2024-09-16T00:00:00Z
Backlogged?
This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.
...that the excavation at Norton Priory, Cheshire, (pictured) in the 1970s was the largest excavation to be carried out by modern methods on any monastic site in Europe? or
WP:DYK says "about"... what if it were 201 characters :/ ...? I can't see even one word that should be removed. But whatever. I'll take off the first three words " a total of"... and "from" Ling.Nut(WP:3IAR)
The further you deviate away from the preferred course, the less likely your nom will get picked.
The hook statement can be easily implied by the refs provided in the article, but it is not specifically mentioned in the citations. Thingg⊕⊗17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 July the article was 13K, as of now it is 21K. Five times 13 does not equal 21. Additionally, most of the exapnsion since the 8th has been addition of images, tables, and requests for more expansion [1]. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that most of the expansion this past week has replaced spurious or non-notable information with actual credible sources and images that we can actually use, fixing formatting issues that made the article virtually unreadable, and added citations where few existed before. Or, when we say expansion, are we only reading that as girth? - Hexhand (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rules state pretty explicitly that the article must be expanded five-fold. It doesn't mean that you haven't done a wonderful job of improving the article, and helping the project, only that the article is ineligible for DYK. But don't be discouraged, take pride in the state of the article. Mastrchf (t/c) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to vastly favor new articles over improved articles. Hell, I could create a stub article for booger art, so long as I reliably cited it, and - according to this criteria - have a better shot at a DYK than an article which has been substantially improved. This seems to be a short-bus criteria, I am thinking. - Hexhand (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Several of our rules could be gamed that way. If we had more volunteers we could debate the quality of articles for hours. As it is we have time enough to count characters in a semi-automated way. A better place to debate the rules is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Art LaPella (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article with so many empty sections and {{Expand}} tags is obviously unfinished and thus not ready to be featured on MainPage. I suspect that if those 9 {{Expand}} tags can get replaced by some prose within the next few days, there'll be a 5X expansion. Have fun! --PFHLai (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. Please forgive my frustrated inquiries, and thank you for answering them with equanimity. Might I direct you to two different DYK suggestions I added yesterday at the bottom of this day's section? - Hexhand (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... that South American Coati males were originally considered a separate species from South American Coati females due to different social habits and were called "coatimundis"? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be reminded that new articles need to be more than 1500 characters long in order to qualify for DYK. (See requirements above.) 1931 Belize hurricane currently has about 1000 characters only. Please keep typing. :-) Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Rum Swizzle is often called "Bermuda's national drink"? - article originally created by User:Braslinut then adopted and expanded by me to save it from an AfD debate. There's a strong (thus far unanimous) consensus to keep and I am posting it here now so that other DYK editors can poke their noses in as desired. Please consider this summery concoction for inclusion in DYK when the debate closes. WARNING: Article might make you thirsty! - House of Scandal (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section on "Maya" lacks citations that verify that it is Maya Angelous and that she "was able to survive as a black child in a white-dominated world". Thats the key concern here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Sigtuna box(pictured) has a runic poem that threatens thieves, but in a metre that was usually reserved for Viking lords and kings? (self-nom)--Berig (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be reminded that new articles need to be more than 1500 characters long in order to qualify for DYK. (See requirements above.) Please keep typing. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no inline citations. Also, the info in the article probably should be moved into SS Imperator as a sub-section as both articles are about the same ship and a fair amount of the information is overlapping. Thingg⊕⊗18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be reminded that new articles need to be more than 1500 characters long in order to qualify for DYK. (See requirements above.) Please keep typing. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It got changed from what I initially typed, although the Jefferson Memorial is definitely a newer Classical (don't know if the other is Classical). I'm looking for an alt hook as we speak.--BedfordPray00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems odd just a grand building has a dirt floor, especially one built in the 20th Century, so it might make a great hook, if in the pictured slot.--BedfordPray04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm only getting 1180 DYK characters for the article. It needs to be 1500+ to be eligible. That said, I think it's a really great article, so it would be wonderful if you could get it up. Vickser (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date, and reference all check out, but I'm not crazy about the use of "historic" in the hook. It's not entirely clear what exactly historic means purely in the context of the sentence. (You could read it as extinct, for example, which would be incorrect.) Maybe ". . . that the Narragansett Turkey is unique to North America and named after Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island?" or something along those lines?
Thanks for opining. You have a good point. The phrase comes from the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy and is cited, but that doesn't mean it's a hard definition (although maybe it is) rather than a loosey-goosey (loosey-turkey?) one. The alternative hook is fine with me, although I might even exclude "and named after Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island?" I do say "might" as it's sort of interesting and Little Rhodey doesn't get front page space often! - House of Scandal (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... that Selenochlamys ysbryda or the Ghost slug, was recently found in Wales and that it's new to science? Unlike other garden slugs Ysbryda has a taste for flesh, blindly hunting for earthworms at night using its blade shaped teeth. -- self-nom, new article (July 10th) expanded 11th. Requested a GFDL picture from the National Museum of Wales. MattOates (Ulti) (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length of both hook and article are fine, but you need to have an inline citation immediately after the hook, not just at the end of the paragraph. It would also be a good idea to move away from just straight urls to what it is and the page number where you got the information. The cited fact, for example, I'd maybe the reference read: DeForest Skinner House Registration Form, National Register of Historic Places. Page 14. Vickser (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and cleaned up the citations and some of the red links as well. Citations now include a page and aren't just written as blank urls. Vickser (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 good ones that could be used for ONIRAMA, I do not know which one is best so I will write them both.
... that Greek band ONIRAMA was founded from the idea of Thodoris Marantinis and Dionisis Prantzis after they met during their military services? - self nom
[[Image:Sorae korea church 1895.jpeg|100x100px|right|Church building constructed at Sorae, Korea (now Ryongyon County, South Hwanghae Province, North Korea), 1895 picture]]
Doesn't seem too nice to label Cervenak a journeyman. I suggest leaving that word off MainPage. It's like saying to everyone that he is not that good a player. ... Journeymen often move from team to team on a season-to-season basis, so the second hook about Cervenak having a long career in Norwich doesn't seem right. --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verified length, date and ref. The first hook doesn't seem very eye-catching to me (though maybe it would if I knew anything about baseball...) I'd vote for the second. Olaf Davis | Talk10:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't everyone (save perhaps Rhoda Penmark) "innocent as a child"? Suggest alt tag: ... that McDonald Clarke, known as the "mad poet of Broadway", drowned in prison after being subjected to an elaborate prank? (the nickname needs to be sourced, preferably by a non-subscription site) Otto4711 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was misreading this. I thought you were saying "as a child, he was innocent" but you're saying "as an adult he had child-like innocence." Otto4711 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could have it read "...of Broadway, was as innocent as a child, met..." to avoid confusion. I was thinking the same thing as Otto when I read it... Thingg⊕⊗14:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the reference and hook are good, there hasn't been a five-fold expansion. The version of the article that existed for the past few months had 1328 DYK characters, and this new one has 3227 DYK characters. Unfortunately to meet the criteria for five-fold expansion, you'll need to get to 6640. Vickser (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image, 5X expansion, and reference ("Zamek posiada ogółem 365 pomieszczeń i 99 wież i wieżyczek.")[2] verified. The article is based on three sources. I'm not sure whether Adamski.pl and Moszna.Zamek.pl qualify as Wikipedia reliable sources. The info from the corresponding Moszna article at Polish Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a Wikipedia reliable source. -- GregManninLB (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the information provided are the same as those I have found in a info bulletin that can be bought in the castle. Moszna.Zamek.pl is the official website for the sanatorium that owns the castle and so these information seem reliable. --Kasjanek21 (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be 1,500 DYK characters (there now are 542 DYK charactes) and the hook fact should appear in the article with an inline citation. GregManninLB (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added the hook to the article and more info, links, and template. I think it's an acceptable length for a DYK article (I've seen some with less). Otebig (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The length now is 887 DYK characters. The source didn't mention anything about the site being the only natural World Heritage site in Kazakhstan. Please provide a link to verify the hook. Also, you might be able to find more information for the article here and here. GregManninLB (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and date are okay, but the hook needs an inline citation. Even though I know it's not a controversial statement, if we use it for DYK it needs a footnote. It should be an easy fix, and it's a really great article and I'd love if we could get this on the front page. Vickser (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please improve the formatting of your references, replacing bare URLs? It would be worth noting in the main reference, by the way, that it includes 18 color photos of houses in the district. doncram (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, while I agree with doncram that better references would certainly improve the article, in this case I am more concerned with the poor writing. There are multiple grammatical problems. I found reading through the article very jarring, and stopped several times trying to figure things out. Among the general awkwardness, I note a missing period, incomplete and run-on sentences and an "an" that should be an "a". I have in the past admired this editor's work, so I'm not sure what's up with this. Lvklock (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did write in very late at night/early in morning. If there is any problems with sentence structure, it's because I am avoiding copyvio, and too often the best way to phrase something would be the original sources terms, which would be copyvio.--BedfordPray17:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like campaign propaganda. Plus, that image can not be on the front page, as its not free use, but fair use.--BedfordPray05:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Bedford on this one. Although the article does a fine job explaining what the plan is and who supports it, it does not address any opposition to it and is definitely not balanced in that it focuses exclusively on one view (the favorable one) of the plan. I'm sorry, but the article in it's current state does not meet the requirement that "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Thingg⊕⊗17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length verified. As for the hook, the use of "Responsible" should be removed since it is POV. Perhaps "Burner Plan" should be used in the hook. The hook implies that the Burner Plan is legislation pending before Congress but in fact is nothing more than campaign promises latched onto by candidates looking to distinguish themselves temporarily from their political opponent. Candidates supporting legislation should be changed to the number of members of congress who are on the record of supporting the Burner Plan without qualification. In regards to the article, the above comments address its POV issues. However, as for proportionately representing significant views within Wikipedia, there probably is much more info on the pro side than the con side since commitment to the "plan" does not really require much accountable commitment. For what its worth, I think the article itself attempts to be neutral (not quite there yet) but the topic itself is so POV that it may be difficult for an admin to list it on the main page. You have five days before the DYK suggestion is moved into expired noms. If you work on the concerns raised, please post back here. GregManninLB (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concerns on POV. I have tried to create a neutral article on an obviously unneutral document that has received predominantly positive coverage, making it hard to present both sides in equal proportions. The section that most references national press coverage could be expanded to pick out some of the pros and cons those articles present. The problem with the name of the plan is unfortunate since that's the name of the plan, not my own POV. I am not passing judgement by referring to the plan by name, but I think we collectively do pass judgement if we try to come up with another way to reference it. Saying something like "the so-called 'Responsible Plan...' ..." might be more appropriate, just as we allow the use of No Child Left Behind Act. -Dankirkd (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does have some problems but the hook is fine and it definitely meets the criteria... I don't see why the fact that it is a political article would matter and it does have neutrality problems still but nothing so pervasive as to make it unsuitable for DYK. I think it's better (and definitely better , more organized source) than many of the DYK so I think we're being overly picky only because of the subject matter. grenグレン21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a "Criticism" section, which should help with some of the POV issues. The article still has some serious neutrality issues though, I'm not sure I would accept it in its current state. Lampman (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any neutrality issues here. The article is simply a description of the plan and how it came into being, it's not an endorsement of the plan itself. Also, it should be obvious to anyone who reads the article that this is a partisan political plan supported by Democrat and liberal organizations, rather than an independent or bipartisan proposal. We don't veto articles just because they happen to be about liberal causes, any more than we do so for articles about conservative ones. The only criterion is that they be properly referenced by reliable sources, and that seems to be the case here. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks absolutely fine to me - no problems approving it for DYK. Even before the addition of the 'views' section I don't think it was POV since it didn't actually make any judgments of the plan, but just described it. With the section on praise and criticism though I don't see how anyone can object. Olaf Davis | Talk13:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I see no problems with the article itself, but the hook fact about the "50 candidates" is sourced to OpenLeft which I'm not persuaded is reliable, I think you'll have to find a better source or come up with a different hook. Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article currently lacks inline citations. There is still time to add some. If an added inline citation that verifies the hook is in the Hungarian language, please include an English language translated quote (aka Explanatory Footnote) so that DYK volunteers can verify the hook. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hook should be lower than 200 characters. This one is 225 characters. -- RyRy (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The hook statement can be easily implied by the refs provided in the article, but it is not specifically mentioned in the citations. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Article was not created or expanded five-fold in the last 5 days. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An article with so many empty sections and {{Expand}} tags is obviously unfinished and thus not ready to be featured on MainPage. I suspect that if those 9 {{Expand}} tags can get replaced by some prose within the next few days, there'll be a 5X expansion. Have fun! --PFHLai (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Date, length and reference verified. I second the greatness of the image, too! Olaf Davis | Talk 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC).jpg)
Length and date verified. Offline reference accepted on good faith. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please be reminded that new articles need to be more than 1500 characters long in order to qualify for DYK. (See requirements above.) 1931 Belize hurricane currently has about 1000 characters only. Please keep typing. :-) Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
