Template talk:Did you know

DYK queue status

There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
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
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
February 28	1	1
March 31	1	1
April 5	1	1
April 13	1
April 14	4	1
April 15	1
April 17	1	1
April 18	1	1
April 19	1
April 20	2	1
April 24	1	1
April 25	3
April 26	4	3
April 27	3	2
April 28	6	4
April 29	8	4
April 30	11	6
May 1	9	6
May 2	6	2
May 3	5	5
May 4	6	3
May 5	9	5
May 6	10	7
May 7	11	7
May 8	10	3
May 9	11	6
May 10	14	6
May 11	8	6
May 12	14	8
May 13	8	5
May 14	11	8
May 15	8	6
May 16	9	3
May 17	14	4
May 18	8	6
May 19	4	1
May 20	8	2
May 21	2
Total	235	126
Last updated 04:43, 21 May 2024 UTC Current time is 04:55, 21 May 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 October 17

I can't speak for everyone in the team, but I am not interested in breaking up this hook into individual noms. Vaticidalprophet you've identified some great potential hooks above, but for me the purpose of being involved in the multihook was the fun of it, the fact that it is by virtue of its size something out of the ordinary, and that it involves a whole bunch of editors in both prepping and moving the bios on election night and then getting them ready for DYK. The last NZ election multihook was only my seond ever DYK nomination, and it was somewhat of a baptism of fire. But it was really fun, and the experience of prepping the bios and reviewing and working together to sort out problems was positive and I stayed involved in DYK afterwards when I otherwise might not have. I don't see nominating 30 individual politician bios as fun in the same way, and I suspect it would be less likely to get interest from other NZ editors not already involved in DYK. Another aspect that puts me off is because to avoid having more than one in a set they'd end up so spread out that I'd be having to think about politican bios for weeks and weeks. No thanks! DrThneed (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand the eagerness to do the multihook, but the way I see it, there are a few issues with the multihook, some brought up by me and others by Vaticidalprophet:

1. According to the DYK criteria, hooks need to be perceived as unusual or interesting to people without special knowledge. That means, a hook should encourage readers to read more about a subject: that's why they're called hooks. The currently written hook, assuming it was just a single article hook that said "Did you know that [person] was elected to the New Zealand Parliament?", isn't really going to fly by DYK standards.
2. About a year or two ago, there was an RfC regarding the interest criterion for DYK. The result was a tightening of the rules, so unlike before where hooks had to be "interesting to a broad audience", a criterion that almost no one could agree on its meaning, now hooks need to basically appeal to people without specialist knowledge. A hook including so many bolded links might technically be considered interesting to many, but it arguably violates the spirit of the criterion, which was intended to make sure that hooks about subjects highlight something about them that would interest even non-specialists.
3. There's a concern that having so many names in a hook might backfire in terms of readership. That is, there are so many names involved that readers may be impressed but less willing to actually look up every name in the hook. Sure, that doesn't mean they need to read everything, but that's a possibility if reader resources are being spread thin. Basically, the more names in the hook, the less that each individual article may actually be read by readers.
4. Some of the proposals given above are actually really good in their own right and would probably do bonkers or at least do pretty well as standalone hooks. I think it would be a shame to put them to waste since I think just having a multihook where the names get a passing mention rather than their own hooks where they are a star would not give them and their careers justice.

As for the concern about spreading out, that shouldn't be much of an issue. The hooks are already provided above, you don't have to come up with your own. We're already having a biography shortage already and hooks running a month or more after approval isn't uncommon, so it's not necessarily a problem.

There could also perhaps be some form of compromise. Perhaps only the "best of the best" of the MP hooks could be split off into their own hooks, while the others could be left in the multihook. The tricky part is that a lot of Vaticidalprophet's proposals are actually pretty good and it would be a shame to leave any of them out. I'm not entirely against multihooks in general, and I think under the right circumstances they can work, but I think the current proposal goes against the spirit of the current guidelines, particularly the ones about interest to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Echoing my comments at WT:DYK here so everything is in one place, I believe the best course of action would be to try and tweak the multihook so it meets the interesting criterion. I brought up the possibility that the new MPS make up over a quarter of parliament, and that all six parties have new MPs. That said, if there is a desire to pull out individual MPs from this list into their own nomination, and if there is someone who actually wants to undertake that effort themselves, then Narutolovehinata5's suggestion should work too. I don't think there is a need to fear weeks of thinking about politicians if they are split off! Generally once approved DYKs sail off into the wind, you can let them live their lives.

While individual splits could be considered now, the final shape of the multi-hook can only take place once the real-life dust settles. Perhaps the length of vote counting is another thing that might hook people! CMD (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That might make a good compromise: some of the best of the best could have their own hooks, while the rest could remain included in a multi-hook if desired. It could be the best of both worlds, allowing those with very interesting stories to shine in their own right, while also avoiding the concerns about "flooding" DYK with New Zealand politicians by keeping some form of a multihook around and acknowledging the work and desires of those involved in wanting a multihook. For example, I'm really partial to VP's proposed hooks for Davidson Rutherford, Costley, Campbell, and Wedd and think they might do well on their own, while the others have okay-to-decent hooks but may not be as big of a loss if they were grouped under a multihook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it could be a good compromise to pull out a few of the more interesting ones and run the rest as a multihook, if the community is agreeable. I am certainly open to rephrasing the multihook itself too, which as noted by Chipmunkdavis is likelier to be easier once the full count has been completed, and there will be new sources detailing all the new MPs and noting things like what proportion of the new parliament they make up etc.

Narutolovehinata5 suggested Davidson, Rutherford, Costley, Campbell, and Wedd as possible stand-alones. My view would be that being a volunteer firefighter/umpire isn't so unusual (at least here) and also that four out of five of those are National Party MPs, so perhaps replacing Rutherford with either Scott Willis or Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke would be better? DrThneed (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm also open to running say a handful of articles standalone if that's what's needed to get the multi-hook over the line. I suggest, however, that the multi-hook would go well with a collage of new MPs. We have exactly four images, and the only good collage (that I can think of) is a 2x2 arrangement. Therefore, the four pictured articles cannot be standalone DYK nominations; that means that Scott Willis is out. Schwede66 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops sorry Schwede66 I forgot about our paucity of photos this year (not for want of trying). So yes Willis needs to stay in the multihook. Hana would still be a good option to pull out though, being the youngest in 170 years (and female and Māori) is pretty cool! DrThneed (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And only the second-youngest ever because the youngest cheated! James Stuart-Wortley got his solicitor to confirm that he was 21 and thus eligible to be elected. It only came out later that they had lied, and he was 20 years and 7 months at the time of the election, thus not eligible to even stand under the rules back then. This isn't even stated in Stuart-Wortley's bio. Schwede66 23:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the firefighter thing, Wikipedia has a broad, global audience, so they might not even know that New Zealand politicians often have or had side gigs, so regardless of how common it is they might still find it unusual. I don't necessarily think the party issue is going to be a problem because what happened was proposing based on hooks rather than party, and so if one party ends up being more represented, it wasn't on purpose and was more of a side-effect of the overall effort rather than an intentional effort to promote one party over the other. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer firefighting is just a common thing in rural communities, as without it there is no fire service. And it isn't a sidegig of an MP as such, there's no way he would be able to keep that up now he's in Parliament and has to be in Wellington! But regardless, if we can build a hook for Hana around her being the youngest legal/non-lying NZ MP ever (sources permitting) that would have to be more interesting, surely? DrThneed (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

My view is that things are interesting either because of their content or their style. Here, like with Template:Did you know nominations/That, playing with the expected form of a hook is interesting. WP:DYKINT places no restriction on interestingness to content. Urve (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. I rarely click through DYKs on the main page, but seeing the sea of blue with last year's multihook definitely sent me down a rabbit hole of NZ politics. I think this is an excellent tradition and drives participation that otherwise may not happen. Unique novelties like this are what drive editor retention and recruitment, in my opinion. However, I do think that a formal, centralized discussion on the topic could be fruitful in the future. Fritzmann (message me) 21:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In any case, there's been some discussion at WT:DYK saying that if the multihook is to be accepted (and right now, consensus on whether to go ahead with it is ongoing), then it would probably need to be revised so that it would be interesting in its own right. That is, ALT0 might not be possible, but a different formulation like focusing on how at least a quarter of the MPs are new, might be possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, please see ALT1 above. Schwede66 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That could work if consensus determines that the multihook can go ahead, though personally I'd still prefer the compromise option. Though I suppose discussion can continue on that front as well: which articles to go individual and which ones will remain in the multihook. The thing that urgently needs to be discussed right now, I think, is to be if the multihook should go ahead in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we going with this compromise (running up to say 5 articles standalone; the rest as a multi-hook)? I'm asking because I managed to source what happened in 1853. This would offer us the following standalone hook, which I reckon is pretty cool: Schwede66 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ALT(Maipi-Clarke) ... that if James Stuart-Wortley had not falsified his age for the 1853 general election, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke would now be New Zealand's youngest-ever member of parliament?

That sounds good, but I'd like to hear DrThneed's thought on what articles she is willing to allow being standalone hooks before we discuss which hooks will be standalone and which ones will remain in the multihook. There doesn't seem to be much consensus really in favor or against the multihook running at all, but given the lack of opposition I'd say that that's probably a sign of allowing at least some kind of multihook to push through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think pulling out five individuals is a reasonable compromise, and one that both Schwede66 and I are happy with - it still leaves us with a decent-size multihook, but allows a few of the more interesting bios to shine, without overwhelming DYK sets with NZ politicians. My opinion is that the best individual hooks are Davidson, Costley, Campbell, Wedd, and Schwede's Maipi-Clarke hook above. If that seems like a good path forward, then some suggestions on the mechanics of it would be appreciated! Would I just make fresh nominations for the individual articles, with a reference back to the multihook as being the actual date of nomination? DrThneed (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the mechanics, I would think:

• strike those articles from this nomination
• remove the relevant credits
• make individual nominations for those bios, with a link back to here to demonstrate that we nominated in time
• move the QPQs across as they stand

That should cover it all, I think. Unless somebody can think of other aspects. Just one issue – we can't use Reuben Davidson as a standalone nomination as he's one of the four bios where we have a photo. Schwede66 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sakes, that's the second time I've put one with an image in the list! Gah. Alright, so Costley, Campbell, Wedd, Maipi-Clarke and one other...I note Narutolovehinata5 liked Rutherford, I think Arbuckle or Trask might be better but no strong feelings, Vaticidalprophet you came up with these individual hooks, do you have a preference for a fifth? DrThneed (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Trask can probably stay in the multihook. The hook is just fine but it's not a standout hook like the other proposals. Is five the agreed number, or can the number change further? I think five is a minimum but perhaps as many as seven could be possible depending on if there are any additional standouts. Though if there's just a desire for a "best-of-the-best", five is fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I enjoy both Arbuckle and Trask's hook and would prefer to see both of them if possible. (I think Rutherford is fairly remarkable to people not from rural NZ. Volunteer firefighters are common enough in rural Aus too, but most people here aren't rural, so it's a distant concept even to me.) Vaticidalprophet 00:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No I don't think either Schwede66 or I want to take out more than 5 (to avoid repetition, that's for all the reasons given above in defence of the multihook! Plus the fact that people have donated QPQs and put effort into expanding bios for a multihook, which they wouldn't necessarily do for individual ones.). So we are discussing which ones rather than how many. Seeing as you're both keen on Rutherford that looks like Campbell, Costley, Wedd, Maipi-Clarke and Rutherford to me. Schwede66 do you want to confirm you're happy with that? DrThneed (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with 5 individual nominations but wouldn't want to see any more than that. Like DrThneed, I'm rather lukewarm about the volunteer firefighter but if that spins the wheels of people outside of Oceania, then so be it. Any hook with "sex" in it will do famously well, and "sex with sheep" will go off the scale, so that's all good. I predict that 80% of Australian readers will click on that one. DrThneed, before we do individual nominations, can we have a look at credits for those together? Schwede66 04:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. With regards to the five individual hooks, are you fine with Vaticidalprophet's proposals or do you have any other ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't mind beyond none of the four photo bios, and I would really like to feature Maipi-Clarke. Schwede66 09:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the question was more are we happy with the hooks as proposed or do we have other ideas? I think it might be easiest if I split them and then anyone with alternative hooks to suggest can discuss them on the individual noms. (Will split tomorrow, am currently working through to make sure I have the page creation/contribution credits accurate for the individuals and the remaining multihook). DrThneed (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Maipi-Clarke has now been nominated individually. I've struck things where appropriate, removed her from ALT1, and removed credits. Schwede66 12:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

DrThneed has nominated the other four individual nominations:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Tim Costley
• Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Wedd
• Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rutherford
• Template:Did you know nominations/Hamish Campbell

We should thus be all good. Let the review of the remaining bios start. Thanks to all who have commented and moved this along. Schwede66 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

|}

Reviews

0 Hook fact

• Not a bad hook, but more people will probably click due to the sheer volume of links Bremps... 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Concerned about the "4 from Te Pāti Māori" part on 2023 New Zealand general election. Source states two. Bremps... 22:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't updated the target article yet (sorry!) and it'll change again tomorrow with the 2023 Port Waikato by-election. I'll get onto it over the weekend. Please bear with me. Schwede66 22:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Take your time. No rush. Bremps... 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Bremps, as noted above, the hook fact is now fully referenced. Please refer to the note above for the details. Schwede66 02:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Schwede66 I am still concerned. I'm checking the citation for National, and it states that 23 new MPs were elected. Looking closer, at least two (Nicholas + Cameron) were projected winners that were ultimately not elected, and another two served in parliament before (Bidois + Garcia). That would come out to 19 (at most) elected National MPs that have never served in parliament before, but the article currently states that there are 21. Bremps... 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bremps, have you checked out the Google Sheet? That lists them all, plus the ones that the original Spinoff article counts as new MPs that were actually returning. And what happened when the final results came out isn't that straightforward to follow; again, the spreadsheet makes much clearer what's going on. Schwede66 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, the spreadsheet clears things up a lot. After reviewing the sources, I think I can give this a Pass Bremps... 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Looking at promoting for prep 3 - Thursday. My question: Is the image accurate to use with the hook? It looks like we have a pic of 20 but that is not all of the people in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton, we have in fact 21 photos but ended up making a 4x5 grid, hence Kahurangi Carter misses out being pictured. For the others, we don't have photos. Hence, the hook as written is correct. BTW, it's a very high number of photos; I got lucky that I managed to talk the National Party into releasing candidate photos. You wouldn't know how many emails were exchanged... Schwede66 20:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: so we are ok publishing the image? The caption seems to say there were 20 new MPs but there are more, so maybe we can change the caption to reflect that the image is not all of the new MPs. Like "20 of the new MPs". It is slightly confusing to me. Bruxton (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, Bruxton. I've changed the caption from "Twenty new MPs for 2023" to "Twenty of the new MPs". That conveys that 20 isn't all of them, and the year is no longer that relevant given that it's now 2024. And regarding the number of hooks in that set, I suggest start with this one and three others and we'll then check for main page balance. I'll put something into a sandbox once the hook set is assembled. Schwede66 21:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

1 Vanessa Weenink

Review:

• New enough: created on the 14th of October, nominated on the 17th
• Surpasses 1,500 characters of prose
• Action needed: Spot check reveals okay sourcing, but citation 6 (electoral commission) is broken. Archived edition seems to not mention the flip being the first time in 20 years.
• Earwig spits out "Violation Unlikely" with an impressive 2.0%
• Article is presentable
• No images, so no copyright issues there
• User:DrThneed seems to have donated a QPQ
• No other issues

Fix the concern about the dead link and the 20-year-flip and we're good to go on this one. Bremps... 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I've attended to those issues. Schwede66 23:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Pass Bremps... 00:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

2 Ryan Hamilton

Approved Recently created, long enough, well referenced, no obvious close paraphrasing, QPQ provided. There's a single bare URL in the citations but this can be easily fixed. 97198 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review 97198, have fixed the bare URL. DrThneed (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

3 Suze Redmayne

Review:

• Just over 1,600 characters of prose
• Created on the 14th, nominated on the 17th
• Action needed: Spotcheck seems to check out. However, citation 7 (NZ Herald) states that "She has also served as a trustee of the Whanganui Community Foundation and is a trustee of Sport Whanganui." That suggests she may not be serving as a trustee for the first group anymore, so the tense will need to be changed.
• "Violation Unlikely", 9.9%
• Article is presentable (fine for display on main page)
• No images, so no copyright issues on that front
• DrThneed seems to have donated this
• No other issues

Fix the issue above and we're good. Bremps... 21:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Bremps, have changed it to 'is or has been' a trustee. DrThneed (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Great, I can pass this Bremps... 22:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

4 Katie Nimon

Review:

• Squeaks over the 1,500 characters prose requirement
• Created on the 14th, nominated on the 17th
• Citations seem fine. Her education is cited to her campaign website (citation 3), but I can let it slide.
• "Violation Unlikely" at 7.4%
• Article is presentable
• No images, so no copyright concerns on that front
• DrThneed donated this QPQ
• No other issues

This is a pass Bremps... 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

8 Dana Kirkpatrick

• Moved to mainspace on 14 October. Citations fine. The quote is a bit unnecessary, but it doesn't count towards readable prose size so probably fine. Image tagged adequately. Article is neutral and well-written—hook fact, that she won the election, is cited in the article and verifiable from the citation. Earwig 2.9%, so no concern. QPQ done. No other issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

9 David MacLeod

. Approved. New enough at time of nomination, having been moved to mainspace on 14 October. Meets length requirements. Sources check out; there's some use of Scoop press releases but only for non-contentious facts. Article is neutral and well-written, I've made a couple of minor fixes. No concerns from Earwig check (6.5%). The "hook" in this case is his election to Parliament which is definitely cited in the article and is approved above. I assume the picture needs to be reviewed; it looks good and appropriately licensed. Tick for QPQ by Schwede66. Overall, this one is good to go. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

10 Grant McCallum

. Approved. New enough at time of nomination, having been moved to mainspace on 14 October. Meets length requirements. Each fact in the article is sourced. Article is neutral and reads fine; "at least two children" reads a bit oddly but that's what we know from the source. No concerns from Earwig check (only thing picked up is a direct quote by McCallum). Hook separately approved. Picture is good and appropriately licensed. QPQ by Lightburst, tick. Another one that is good to go. Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

11 James Meager

NOTE: The following is copied from Template:Did you know nominations/James Meager; it cannot be transcluded because that separate nomination is being closed in favor of this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Starting review... — Knightoftheswords 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article would be eligible for DYK IMO, however, a single thing stands out that destroys the nom; this article was created in October and last made in November, so unfortunately I am going to fail this. Having since discovered that this is apart of a broader process, I am reversing my decision and suggesting a pass. — Knightoftheswords 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC) — Knightoftheswords 13:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Pity, we could have pulled an epic move and did it as an image hook. Bremps... 22:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, it was actually nominated with a few other articles in mid-October here, shortly after creation. It was only spun out of the larger hook recently. Knightoftheswords281 Bremps... 22:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No, we are not removing this from the mass nomination. Bremps, please transfer your review to the mass nomination. Schwede66 19:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it's actually Knightoftheswords281 who reviewed this; please transfer your review to Template:Did you know nominations/Vanessa Weenink. Schwede66 19:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

12 Mike Butterick

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

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

13 Miles Anderson

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

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

15 Rima Nakhle

Shivashree, you marked off Rima Nakhle as approved in the table above but you did not provide a rationale here why the bio is meeting the DYK requirements. Could you please attend to that? Schwede66 01:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Whilst Shivashree marked the article as reviewed, there is no breakdown here how the article meets the requirement as is stipulated by the DYK review rules. As the reviewer hasn't responded to the request of providing the detail, someone else will need to review this. Schwede66 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Article length: Article is not expanded x5 in the past 10 days. The article had 1026 characters in September 2021. Present length is 2171 characters.

It is biography of a living person, with significant notability as Member of Parliament. Article is well cited. The hook is long with too many names, but that should be okay. GD (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Shivashree. Two things. Regarding the article, you need to look at its history. It was moved into mainspace on 14 October and nominated for DYK on 17 October, i.e. it is new to mainspace. Regarding your signature, I have struck your time stamp as it shows you having made this comment 5 days ago, when in fact you commented a few minutes prior to my reply. Schwede66 04:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't check the move log. Regarding the signature, I had posted my review on Template:Did you know nominations/Rima Nakhle and just copy-pasted from there. I see it doesn't work that way.

The article qualifies on newness, notability, verifiable. GD (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

16 Carl Bates

Almost Just long enough, reads neutrally. But careful about quotations: "people in the region ..." is a journalist's words, not Bates's, and should be paraphrased. Amazon likely isn't necessary to cite in either the body or list of books (which can cite themselves). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Hameltion. I concur with your concerns and think that I've addressed all those issues. Please have another look and say if I've overlooked something / if there's room for further improvement. Schwede66 08:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Approved OK. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

17 Greg Fleming

Almost Good except a bit more care needed around some topics. Suggest more immediately saying he disavowed his past views on civil unions and supports them now. Also the mention of "conversion therapy" is sourced entirely to an opinion piece, which makes me question its WP:DUEness. And in the other direction, Venn Foundation would benefit from a non-primary description. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into this. The first issue about conversion therapy, I shall state that Andrea Vance (the author of the opinion piece) is a senior journalist and you wouldn't expect anything "undue" from her. That said, there are in fact two sources for his (historic) views on conversion therapy, and the second one says exactly the same thing that Vance stated in her piece. Hence I suggest that one is fine as is. I'll investigate the other issues, too. Schwede66 00:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got dragged away from the computer and then went bush for a few days. Regarding "conversion therapy" being sourced entirely to an opinion piece, I've added another citation. I've introduced his change of views regarding civil unions at first mention. I've removed the direct quote regarding the Venn Foundation; what's there now is referenced by the Newshub source. Lastly, I've expanded the lead somewhat. Please let me know whether that addresses all the issues, Hameltion. Schwede66 08:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Mention of conversion therapy still appears not entirely due: we've got just an unattributed opinion piece – by a journalist or not – and a new citation with just a passing mention of Fleming (yes, of course he led the organization at the time). The statement's contentious enough to have been vandalized in the week of this review; recommend finding stronger sourcing or paring back. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've commented it out, Hameltion, and otherwise expanded the article. Let me know if it's ok now. Schwede66 02:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Approved Hameltion (talk | contribs) 06:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

18 Jamie Arbuckle

Approved All formally OK in length, neutrality, sourcing, no copyvio. Could use some added information about any political positions or goals, achievements on council, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

19 Casey Costello

Almost

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - See below.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Expanded three refs, fixed a typo, but I am concerned about the undue weight issues with said refs concerning the New Conservatives Party, especially since two of them are primary (one of them is FB) and the article could really use a secondary source like this. Otherwise looks good. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for improving those references, Miraclepine, and for your review. I've had a go and improved a bunch of things, including what you pointed to in your review. Good find regarding your suggested ref; I regard Alex Braae as the top authority on fringe parties. Please let me know whether the article is now up to spec. Schwede66 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I removed one minor thing not supported by the sources, but other than that, Approved. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

20 Tanya Unkovich

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

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Had to remove an unverifiable detail sourced to a now-private YouTube video, but otherwise looks good. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

21 Reuben Davidson

Approved Meets requirements. Though education seems to be missing and could add margin of victory in 2023. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hameltion. Have added his broadcasting degree (I don't think we know anything else about his education), and the margin in the final results. DrThneed (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

22 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel

Approved Removed one seemingly trivial detail, otherwise quite well done. Lede could at least mention broadcasting and sports administration. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hameltion, have attended to that. DrThneed (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

23 Scott Willis

Approved Resolved mild OR with copyedit. Could use broader statement of what his activism/service career has consisted of/benefit from more independent sourcing. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hameltion. I've added a couple of extra sources (there's been surprisingly little further coverage of him since the election). The Willis-authored articles were there to provide some info on issues he cares/writes about - I would rather have sourced to a summary by a third party but as yet haven't found one. Maybe there's a better way to include them, though - in an academic bio, I would have a selected pubs section, but that isn't usual in a politician bio. I could move them to External links perhaps if you think that would be better? DrThneed (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@DrThneed: Selected publications would work. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. DrThneed (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

24 Darleen Tana

Very close Ref5's URL (Ling) is a search result, but other sourcing OK. Questions on prose: worked on projects is fairly unspecific, and in the role of Kaiārahi could use explanation. New to mainspace, long enough, neutral. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hameltion. PressReader won't give me a URL for the article for ref 5, so I've removed the URL and added that it was accessed via PressReader instead. I can't find any specifics about what she did in China or Singapore, if I find anything I'll add it in, otherwise I have at least removed the repetitiveness of work/worked/working. The role of Kaiārahi is not defined on the project website, nor on Wikipedia. It can mean leader or navigator or guide, but I am not going to define it here when it is not defined in the source, so have just removed the words instead. DrThneed (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Approved Works for me. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

25 Tākuta Ferris

Almost New/long. But is this Maori Party press release, and the long quotation, due for inclusion? Consider (not demanding) adding independent info on his pre-2023 campaigning, such as from this article, and maybe a bit about his art. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Hameltion. I've dealt with the sensible changes suggested by you. Please let me know whether you see room for more improvement. Schwede66 04:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Approved Good addition. Just small things: was "shining" could use in-text attribution, and "self-described" shouldn't be necessary—sources like [1] [2] may help clarify. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

28 Laura Trask

Approved. Only suggestion would be to maybe explain what "out-of-hours medical support" is a little better. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Sammi Brie. I tweaked the wording to be 'after-hours' (which is the term used in the source, and is a pretty common term over here for a loose reference to evenings/nights/weekends ie when your average medical centre is closed), and also to say she advocated for 24h support, to help with context. Hopefully that is clearer for an international audience but let me know if you think not! DrThneed (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

29 Cameron Luxton

@DrThneed: The paragraph beginning "Luxton contested..." contains no citations. Please rectify this and ping me as the article is otherwise ready. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: thanks for the review. Have added three, hopefully looks a bit better but let me know if any remaining issues. DrThneed (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Approved Looking better. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

31 Carlos Cheung

Approved No DYK issues on this one. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

32 Todd Stephenson

Approved. No textual issues and long enough. Suggest to DrThneed to reword "workplace" before "J&J Open and Out Employee Resource Network" as a bit of a kludge with the big proper name at the end. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sammi Brie, have reworded and should be less clumsy now. DrThneed (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

33 Takutai Moana Kemp

I'll take this one. I'm busy, so I'll review this in ~9 hours (00:00 UTC). Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 16:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Even busier then expected; I'll review this next night. If I don't do it by 00:00 UTC, another reviewer is free to take this. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good to me. Reworded a spot of minor CLOP. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

34 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - see below
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I don't think that the lengthy quote in the "Political career" section is necessary or neutral—what else is a candidate for that party going to say? I suspect it was inserted to bring the character count above 1500. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC

Thanks for the review, AirshipJungleman29. I agree with those concerns and have given the bio a good once-over. It should be a lot more meaningful now, putting her 2023 electoral success in context. Please let me know if you see further room for improvement. Schwede66 01:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

35 Kahurangi Carter

Review:

• Article was moved into mainspace on the 3rd of November, nomination was on the 17th of October...
• Over 1,500 characters of prose
• Spot check reveals okay sources
• Earwig states "Violation Unlikely", at 4.8%
• Article is presentable (of adequate quality to be linked on the main page)
• Image is freely licensed, trusting the VRT on the WikiCommons page
• DrThneed donated this for a QPQ
• No other, subjective issues preventing this from showing up on the main page. However, the talk page doesn't link to this nom.

This is going to be a pass Bremps... 22:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

42 Nancy Lu

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

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Final nomination result

To prevent this nomination from being prematurely moved to the Approved page before all articles have been reviewed and approved (as has already happened), a "review needed" icon was placed before this sentence. Please do not not supersede it with a tick icon below here until every one of the nominations above have been reviewed and given their tick icons. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering how long this nomination has been ongoing and the length of time the reviews have taken, I do wonder if more of the articles (not all, but perhaps a few more, maybe five or less) could be spun off into individual nominations/hooks. Keeping them unapproved for too long instead of giving them the chance to shine on the main page just seems unfair to the articles IMO. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah. There's just four reviews to go: Butterick, Anderson, Kapa-Kingi, and Lu. It'll be done soon. Schwede66 23:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, DrThneed, and Schwede66:, I have just reviewed those four articles; three were passed, but Kapa-Kingi needs to be attended to. Once that's done, and once Hameltion has approved Greg Fleming, this nomination can be approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

All articles reviewed and approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In case I was meant to remove the re-review sign. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 30

• ... that Zavodovski Island stinks?
• ALT1: ... that Zavodovski Island stinks?
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk). Self-nominated at 06:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Zavodovski Island; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - See below in comments.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Obviously, the hook works as it got my eyeballs here! Article improved to GA in time; no copyright vios detected. Minor quibbles: the wikilinking should be revised. The way it is currently presented inadvertently deceives the reader into thinking that they will be lead into an article about the island's smell. The wording of the hook itself is A-OK, but needs to be cited in this nomination as well. QPQ also pending. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I realize this is asking a lot, but I can't provide a QPQ via phone editing so can I ask that this DYK be kept on hold for a week? WRT the hook, it is sourced in the article and I don't think it's an easter egg - a reader can expect a Zavodovski-related article. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 07:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I actually need a QPQ here - I have a lot of DYKs under my main account Jo-Jo Eumerus. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 07:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, if I can I'd like to donate a QPQ from Template:Did you know nominations/Paroedura maingoka! I really like this hook, thanks for the article. CurryTime7-24 were there any other issues? Fritzmann (message me) 17:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Fritzmann2002 Absolutely and thank you! The hook itself is fine and needs no revision. Just the wikilink formatting remains the only issue. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You know, like an idiot I didn't remember the donated QPQ and thus wrote this one. I still don't agree that the wikilink is a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I initially thought the link would lead me to an article about the island's stench or some such because of the way it was formatted. Would love to hear what another uninvolved editor thinks. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a little bit of a butter cookie tin link. "MMMMmmm cookies, what, black magic supplies? Interesting, but I wanted a cookie." Not all the way to being a total Easter egg link because the fact of the island stinking is in the lead/head of the article. I lean towards not making "stink" part of the link. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Something like the ALT? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

: ALT1 approved. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 2

References

Articles created/expanded on November 4

@Z1720: Sorry I tried to on a mobile edit around a week ago and it looks like it didn't save/publish/whatever. All done now. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

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

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

Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [3]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [4].

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