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	2
April 24	1	1
April 25	3
April 26	3	2
April 27	2	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	4
May 5	9	5
May 6	10	7
May 7	12	7
May 8	10	3
May 9	11	7
May 10	14	6
May 11	8	6
May 12	14	8
May 13	9	5
May 14	11	9
May 15	8	6
May 16	9	4
May 17	14	4
May 18	8	6
May 19	6	1
May 20	9	3
May 21	7
Total	243	131
Last updated 20:58, 21 May 2024 UTC Current time is 22:51, 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 February 25

@Shooterwalker:, @Z1720:, sorry for the delay! How about:

ALT3 "... that the mansions in the Herodian Quarter contain frescoes with burn marks and charred wooden beams, serving as evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD?" as a shorter ALT0? Also, I believe ALT2 is quite concise, don't you think?

Mariamnei (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Approve of the revisions to ALT0. (Now labelled ALT3.) Much more clear and concise. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 1

Kirby: King of Comics

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Jack Kirby

• ... that Kirby: King of Comics contains original artwork made by Jack Kirby (pictured) which Mark Evanier obtained while working for him? Source: [1], [2]>
  • ALT1: ... that Mark Evanier was a good friend of Jack Kirby (pictured) which gave him access to lots of original art to include in his biography? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
  • ALT2: ... that while writing Kirby: King of Comics, once Mark Evanier hit a word count of 250,000 he considered the book nowhere near finished? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
  • ALT3: ... that Kirby: King of Comics contains original artwork made by Jack Kirby (pictured) which Kirby's family reobtained the following a public campaign and legal threats? Source: [3], [4]
  • ALT4: ... that Mark Evanier once worked for Jack Kirby (pictured) which gave him access to lots of original art to include in his biography? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
  • ALT5: ... that Mark Evanier advertised his book as the first biography about Jack Kirby (pictured) despite another one being published four years earlier? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/may/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: QPQ not needed fifth nom

5x expanded by OlifanofmrTennant (talk). Self-nominated at 20:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kirby: King of Comics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Expanded 5x, from 319 to 1614 characters; long enough. Well-sourced, neutral, no plagiarism. I like the first hook; its source is reliable. Great image; I agree that's a better one than the book cover. Well done taking a stub to a short-ish and salvageable article. Good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have pulled this nom from prep, as it fails to include a summary of the book's contents and thus fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. It also contains at least two errors, one which says Evanier "obtained" artworks from Kirby "while working for him" - he only obtained access, and not apparently while working for him, and another which says the book was met with "positive" reviews when in fact it was panned by The Guardian critic. The article clearly needs more work before it can be featured, if it should be featured at all given the apparent errors. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Gatoclass I've begun working on a summary of the books contents, its been a while sinces I've read the book so I'll have to look over it again Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging nominator OlifanofmrTennant, reviewer Figureskatingfan, and promoter PrimalMustelid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There has been no improvement of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I feel that their has been improvement of the article I've just been struggling to find content supported backed up by sources.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Upon reviewing policy I belive that it would be covered under WP:DYKCITEQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The summary is extremely short, to the point of remaining woefully incomplete. Still fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Time to pass on this as the nominator just isn't accepting what they are being told.4meter4 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I've expanded it a bit how much would be needed? I fear that to much would just be a mini biography of Jack Kirby. It took me a while to begin writing the summary as I didnt have my copy at the time.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant The summary needs to present a complete but not overly detailed picture of the book's entire plot. It should provide enough detail to give the reader a general picture of the book's contents. It should not be too vague (which it currently is) nor should it be overly detailed. It should be a summary. See MOS:PLOT and Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance. I would suggest removing the bulleted point by chapter. It isn't entirely necessary to break down the content into chapters. It would be better to concentrate on narrative. What is the story being told? Summarize that story. Since this is a biography it should be biographical. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article on summaries for non-fiction such as biographies. It might be helpful to think about how you would summarize the book if you were writing for a summary on the book jacket of the back of the book, or if you were having to write a book summary for an English class, or an abstract for a journal article book review in which a summary is provided as part of a review. All of those require narrative and details but still succinct writing with an overview scope. You should be able to craft one or two paragraps of prose that summarizes the book's narrative arc. 4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominator has not made any movement on this since the above discussion. It's time to close this for failing WP:DYKCOMPLETE.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I have. I've just been struggling to do so as I havent written a book article before.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a re-look and I think the summary is now sufficiently in-depth to pass WP:DYKCOMPLETE. I would have preferred a paragraph structure with smoother prose, but that is no reason to hold up a DYK review. All other DYK criteria check out. However, portions of both the Alt1 and Alt2 hook facts are not currently in the article. The quote "nowhere near finished" is not in the article, and there is no mention of a friendship between Evanier and Kirby. For this reason, only the original hook can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I made a few new hooks as those arent the best. Also since ALT0 is wrong I rephrased it. Also ALT2 is included now.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant Please add citations directly after each hook fact. Any sentence with a fact in a hook must have a citation to pass DYK review. In just rechecking Alt2, the sentence with the hook fact lacks a citation and the text that's in quotes in the hook is not in quotes in the article. Is this a quote? If it is it needs to be in quotes in the article's prose. If it's not a quote then it should not be in quotes within the hook sentence. I'm not going to even look at the other hooks until you have fixed this one and can assure me all the necessary citations are in place. Ping me when you are ready.4meter4 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: its there, its the gaurdian source. But reguardless I used the citation again higher in the paragraph.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant In looking at the Alt2 hook fact, it is not a quote of Evanier directly but it is a quote of The Guardian. The text needs to attribute it to The Guardian in quotes in both the article and the hook, or its a problem with WP:Plagiarism. This needs to be fixed. We can't promote an article with plagiarism issues. Now that I've seen this, I'm going to have to go through all the sources and make sure there aren't other issues of non-attributed text or close paraphrasing. I had trusted the original reviewer had done this, but I'm going to have to re-review with a careful eye on any copyright violations. In the mean time, please put the attributions for this quote in the article. Also, I was asking earlier for you to confirm that all the citations were in place for the many alt hooks you proposed. I don't want to have to keep coming back here and asking again for more citations. Every hook fact must have a citation immediately following the sentence of the hook fact. This may mean we duplicate citations in ways that we may not do when not featuring an article at DYK. This is one of those hoops that DYK requires, even if it seems redundant.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

New reviewer needed. I'm not seeing any more close paraphrasing, but I'd like a second set of eyes on this just to make sure I didn't miss anything.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any either. Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer, OlifanofmrTennant, 4meter4, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm having to reopening this, as it looks like the point made by Gatoclass above, that the hook mentions that Evanier "obtained" artworks from Kirby "while working for him" was not addressed, and that hook is not supported by the article. All I can see is "Evanier worked for Kirby and was a friend of his, giving him additional insight while writing the book", which isn't the same thing. On a more minor note, the second paragraph of the "Development" section is cited entirely to the book itself, which would be a WP:PRIMARY source. For a statement like "Kirby's family re-obtained the art following a public campaign to have them returned and legal threats from Kirby" I'd think a secondary source highly preferable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: Added. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Which hooks are approved Illegitimate Barrister? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    • ALT5 looks good. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

the issues above are still not addressed, this is the third time it's been mentioned now. The only change to the article since my issue was raised above, was to add a couple more cites, but the problem is thathte article does not say anything about him obtaining works from Kirby while working from him. Come on please, the objections need to be addressed directly. Given that this has already been marked as "rejected" twice above and issues still remain more than two months later, it may be getting close to time to archive this and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: I struck out the hook that said that. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  @OlifanofmrTennant: oh yes, so you did... I didn't notice that I'm sorry. In that case we just need @Illegitimate Barrister: or someone else to indicate which hook(s) are approved for go-live. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  • ALT4 looks good. ALT5 looks good. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Note: there were two hooks given the ALT4 label, so I've changed the second to ALT5. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot approve ALT4, as the article says "additional insight" and the hook says "lots of original art", and these are not the same thing. ALT5 checks out, although a) I just had to merge two sentences together to meet WP:DYKHFC and b) I just had to correct a spelling mistake in the hook. Let's roll.--Launchballer 11:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKIMG, this should probably run without the image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I'm usually the one whining about poor image quality, but I don't see any problems with this one. What is your objection? RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The bit about "try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article"—the hook is about the book, but we don't want everyone to see the picture and go to Kirby's article instead. That would be a waste of the image slot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I haven't promoted this hook because I still feel, as I did in this diff (quickly reverted), that the "Summary" section doesn't actually describe the contents of the book, but rather the contents of Jack Kirby, and that it in any case needs to be cited as it doesn't fall under WP:PLOTCITE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 Given that its a non fiction book that is about Kirby I think that its fair. Also the book is cited in Kirbys article multiple times so that might explain some overlap. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 19

The changes above fix the issues. This is GTG! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on March 22

Much appreciated OlifanofmrTennant! I have an idea for a hook that focuses on one of the season's more notable storms; how's this sound?

• ALT1: ... that the 1994 Pacific hurricane season produced the farthest-traveling hurricane ever recorded? (Sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20190208010617/https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E7.html, https://wmo.asu.edu/content/tropical-cyclone-longest-distance-traveled-tropical-cyclone)

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 04:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I may have found a better source for ALT0: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hyperactive-2018-Eastern-Pacific-Hurricane-Season-Ends ("Three Category 5 hurricanes with 160 mph winds formed in the Eastern Pacific in 2018: Willa, Lane, and Walaka. This ties the record set in 1994 and 2002 for most Cat 5s in one year in the basin.") Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 04:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I prefer ALT0 over ALT1. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:08, 31 March 2024 (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: [5]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [6].

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