Template talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WugBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
59,683 edits
m 1 approved nominations to approved page, removing 0 closed nominations, WugBot v0.9.2
Rotating nomination headings for April 30
Line 130: Line 130:
{{Template:Did you know nominations/The Sign (Bluey)}}
{{Template:Did you know nominations/The Sign (Bluey)}}


⚫
==Current nominations<!-- automatically moved by bot -->==
===Articles created/expanded on April 22===
===Articles created/expanded on April 22===
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).-->
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).-->
Line 137: Line 136:
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of San Diego County, California}}
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of San Diego County, California}}


⚫
==Current nominations<!-- automatically moved by bot -->==
===Articles created/expanded on April 23===
===Articles created/expanded on April 23===
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).-->
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).-->
Line 193: Line 193:
{{Template:Did you know nominations/DellaXOZ}}
{{Template:Did you know nominations/DellaXOZ}}
{{Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Southeast Asia heat wave}}
{{Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Southeast Asia heat wave}}

===Articles created/expanded on April 30===
<!-- After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment).-->


==Special occasion holding area==
==Special occasion holding area==

Revision as of 00:00, 30 April 2024

DYK queue status

There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
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, purge it.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
February 28 1 1
March 31 1 1
April 5 1
April 9 1 1
April 13 1
April 14 3
April 15 1
April 17 1
April 18 2 2
April 19 2 1
April 20 2
April 21
April 24 1
April 25 5 2
April 26 7 2
April 27 8 5
April 28 11 7
April 29 10 4
April 30 15 9
May 1 10 7
May 2 7 2
May 3 5 4
May 4 7 4
May 5 9 5
May 6 12 7
May 7 11 7
May 8 11 3
May 9 11 4
May 10 14 6
May 11 7 4
May 12 11 4
May 13 6 3
May 14 10 6
May 15 6 5
May 16 8 2
May 17 6 1
Total 224 109
Last updated 12:25, 17 May 2024 UTC
Current time is 12:49, 17 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

Shortcut

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
Check list for nomination review completeness
  1. Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: .
  2. Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
    • Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting.
  3. Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
  4. 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.
  5. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
  6. Hook should make sense grammatically.
  7. Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
  8. 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 :)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
  4. Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
  5. 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.
  6. Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
  1. At the upper left
    • Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • Change |passed= to |passed=yes
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 28

Kirby: King of Comics

(
)
Jack Kirby
Jack Kirby

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.[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Pinging nominator OlifanofmrTennant, reviewer Figureskatingfan, and promoter PrimalMustelid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no improvement of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Upon reviewing policy I belive that it would be covered under WP:DYKCITEQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Articles created/expanded on March 12

Articles created/expanded on March 14

Articles created/expanded on March 19

Articles created/expanded on March 24

Articles created/expanded on March 25

Articles created/expanded on March 30

Articles created/expanded on March 31

Articles created/expanded on April 2

Articles created/expanded on April 4

Articles created/expanded on April 6

Articles created/expanded on April 7

Articles created/expanded on April 8

Articles created/expanded on April 9

Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war

(
)
Created by John Cummings (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

John Cummings (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • With four maintenance tags, this isn't going anywhere. Schwede66 00:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening per talk.--Launchballer 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Launchballer, just FYI to whoever reviews this, I've addressed the maintainance tags and done a QPQ with Template:Did you know nominations/KDCD-TV. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed now that maintenance tags are addressed and QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks BlueMoonset, to the person reviewing it, please ping me with any questions :) John Cummings (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Cummings:, I started a review, but didn't get past the first section. I understand that this is a delicate subject, but the opening fails Wikipedia:NPOV. Can you rework the opening section so it a little less "pointy"? --evrik (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi evrik thank you for looking at the article, I realise it is an emotive subject. I believe the intro to be a fair summary of the events and have used the same descriptors for the events as the sources, especially the academic study to try to make the article as accurate as possible. However there are limited sources available given the blockade and ban on journalists entering. I can't find any sources which despute that the destruction has happened or who destroyed the farms and trees. There are some more sources to go through but they mainly focus on the health impacts of the destruction. I've included the only quote I can find from the Israeli government in the body of the article. Can you tell me which words/phrases specifically you think are not balanced and how you would go about changing it? John Cummings (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tone down the hyperbole in the opening. If you can do that, ping me and I'll start the review again. --evrik (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik: (I appreciate I'm butting in, but the page is on my watchlist) I'm not seeing hyperbole in the article, grim as it is; some specifics would be helpful for progressing the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited two items in the article. It looks like the suggestions made here have been implemented and the article is as neutral as it can be. The article has the correct inline citations and it is both long enough and new enough to qualify for dyk. The hook is confirmed, in the article, and interesting. I prefer ALT0 as it introduces the word ecocide which is the subject of the article. The nominator has done a qpq. Regarding the stability of the article - it appears mostly -stable, just the nominator and myself have edited it today. Earwig has been down for me today so I have spot checked sources and did not find evidence of plagiarism. Bruxton (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton thanks very much for assessing it and for your additions to the article. John Cummings (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hook @Rjjiii: it works and it confirmed with the sources. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton honestly I really dislike this solution, all the sources are very clear on the source of the vast vast majority of the destruction which is Israeli forces using bulldozers and bombs. It currently reads as passive voice with no information on who is doing the destruction. I understand the number of bombs has been taken issue with, my strong preference is:

... that Israel's systematic destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and bombs has been described as an ecocide? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide-environmental-destruction-pollution-rome-statute-war-crimes-aoe

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at WT:DYK, that hook is not supported by the source. CMD (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that WP:DYKHOOK says The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change. Hooks that talk about a specific number of trees destroyed in an ongoing conflict can't possibly meet that requirement. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith thanks for explaining this, the fact Israeli forces destroyed them and that they have been accused of ecocide I think both meet that requirement. 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, to take each part of the sentence and quote from the source in "s:

  • that Israel's : " Israel’s onslaught on Gaza’s ecosystems has made the area unlivable" and "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land"
  • systematic : "Samaneh Moafi, FA’s assistant director of research, describes the destruction as systematic." and "The effects of this systematic agricultural destruction"
  • destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza : " shows the destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland"
  • using bulldozers and bombs : "farmland destroyed by bombs and bulldozers"
  • has been described as an ecocide? : "led to calls for it to be regarded as “ecocide” and investigated as a possible war crime"

One related question, is it possible to use a second link in the hook to further provide sources? I feel like this is is sufficient but others also state facts to back up the statement as well.

John Cummings (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual points may all be sourced, but they should not be synthed together to say something else. CMD (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks, can I check that you agree that all the invidvidual facts are supported by the source now? Could you describe what you think is synthesised? And what is "something else"? I feel like this sentence is an accurate summary of the facts. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put details in the discussion at WT:DYK which I would ask you to refer to, but in general if your hook is trying to connect five different points it is unlikely to be accurate. Another example, not covered by WT:DYK, is you are claiming all 38-48% (not a small range) of the destruction is due to systematic bulldozing and bombing, while in actuality that is the total destruction caused by all actors and actions in the war. CMD (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks for your reply, its got a bit difficult to keep track of everything when its spread across two pages. Can you say which part you think is unaccurate taking these 5 facts from the source? I know that there is some wood taken for firewood, however this and the other sources are clear, the vast vast majority of the trees have been destroyed by Israeli military "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land". Would you be happy if the phrase was changed to 'more than 38% of trees and farmland' rather than '38% - 48%'? This would make it a direct quote from the source. My understanding of the % range in the information is simply that no one is allowed to enter Gaza to measure the destruction so the researchers made their study through remote sensing and that the amount of trees used for firewood is negligable and includes trees already felled by Israeli military. John Cummings (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The synthing together of the five facts is the issue, not the individual facts. I suggest picking one in particular, and making a hook about that (although not the bombs and bulldozers one, that's mostly a dramatic turn of phrase, especially as we know they also used tanks). Looking at the article, 38% and 48% are actually separate points, 38% is from a study of farmland, 48% is specifically tree cover, two distinct albeit overlapping measurements. CMD (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, thanks for your reply, I'm unsure how I could use only one of the facts and make it a full sentence. Thanks for the suggestions about separating the tree destruction and farmland destruction and catching the use of tanks, I've integrated that into a new Alt. John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 10

Articles created/expanded on April 13

Articles created/expanded on April 14

Cosmic Ray (film)

(
)
5x expanded by Hinnk (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 39 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

hinnk (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • (Not a review) It looks like the book is specifically saying that it's the first short film to put a pop song over "silenced clips" (found footage?), not that it was the first short film ever to have a pop song as its entire soundtrack. The latter definition covers an awful lot of musical short films going back to the 1920s. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, it was definitely nagging me how to accurately summarize that claim without basically quoting it directly. I think there were some similar claims made in other sources, so I'm gonna look through those again and see what the best way to approach that would be. As a fallback, there's the quote about the film "presenting the eyes for Ray Charles". hinnk (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ALT1: ... that Bruce Conner's Cosmic Ray has been recognized as the first music video? Source: [5][6]
      • ALT2: Bruxton (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)... that Bruce Conner conceived of his short film Cosmic Ray as "presenting the eyes" for blind musician Ray Charles? Source: Looking for Bruce Conner: "I felt that I was, in a way, presenting the eyes for Ray Charles, who is a blind musician…I was supplying his vision." hinnk (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer still needed. Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like ALT1 as it is confirmed, interesting, in the article and supported with RS including the Boston Globe. The article is a 5x expansion so qualifies. The article has the correct inline citations and it is neutral. NOqpq required and Earwig alerts at 35% to a long quote. Bruxton (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@Hinnk, RoySmith, Bruxton, AirshipJungleman29, and DigitalIceAge: per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Cosmic_Ray_(film), I've reopened this as I think there is too much doubt about the assertion of it being the first music video... as DigitalIceAge suggested, "this is a fringe view and too controversial to run as a hook". Either the hook should be strongly nuanced, or something else developed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(also ping Hinnk as above had a typo)  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: First are interesting, like The first woman named to the Blue Angels as F/A-18 demonstration pilot Blue Angel fighter pilot Amanda Lee. Bruxton (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was being (only partially) sarcastic :-) But, that's a good example of a first that's probably OK to use. There's a small finite set of people who have been Blue Angle pilots. And an even smaller subset of them are women. So it's easy to do an exhaustive search of all women blue angel pilots and see who was first. Likewise, we had a hook recently about some member of the British royal family being the first to fly in a helicopter. There's a very small set of people who are in the British royal family and everything they do is noted. And helicopters have only existed for a relatively short amount of time. So it's really unlikely somebody will come up with some other royal who flew in a helicopter earlier. It's the open-ended sets like short films or WW-II fighter pilots where declaring somebody or something to be "first" gets dicey. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Babbitt Johnson

(
)
  • ... that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented the carving of Mount Rushmore? Source: Smith, Rex Alan (January 1, 1985). The Carving of Mount Rushmore. New York City: Abbeville Press. pp. chapter 2 and chapter 5; Fite, Gilbert Courtland (1952). Mount Rushmore. Internet Archive. Norman : University of Oklahoma Press; Merritt, Riley (2024-04-01). "Borglum's Horse Flies: The Early Opposition to Mount Rushmore". Honors College Theses.
    • Reviewed:
5x expanded by Borg Axoim (talk) and Crunchydillpickle (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Borg Axoim (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The nominated article has one paragraph without a citation. The uncited paragraph could be supported in part by pages 11 and 121 of Mount Rushmore by Gilbert C. Fite, it talks about the Hot Springs Star's editorial stance. https://archive.org/details/mountrushmore00univ/page/121 I also suggest that an alternate wording like "that early environmentalists like Cora Babbitt Johnson almost prevented..." rather than the current wording. Update:Thanks to Mary Mark Ockerbloom for working on the reference problems on the article. Do either of the two nominators, Borg Axoim or Crunchydillpickle, have any final thoughts or last minute suggestions? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No further comments, but I think we're good to go. Letting Borg Axoim and Crunchydillpickle know that its approved. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Borg Axoim, @Crunchydillpickle and @MtBotany Where does the wiki article state that the carving of Mount Rushmore was "almost prevented?" Unless there's genuine evidence from the cited source that the project was almost going to be shut down (if so, that should be added in), letters of opposition, protests, and halts do not equal "preventions." This needs to be addressed first before promotion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, PrimalMustelid sloppy reviewing on my part. One of the project's promotors (Robinson) said that her editorials against the project, "might produce a real disaster." The strongest that could be said is something like "environmentalists delayed the carving of Mount Rushmore" and I don't know that such as statement would be surprising/interesting. If Borg Axoim or Crunckydillpickle are interested in a rewrite of the hook there is a lot of support for something like "the artist who carved Mt. Rushmore called Cora Johnson and other environmentalists opponents "horseflies"." 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • PrimalMustelid and MtBotany, you're right that the wording may not be ideal. Two of the sources (Fite and Merritt) mention how Cora Babbitt Johnson swayed the South Dakota governor against the project and that he delayed the project severely. Given that, I think it would be fair to say something like "Cora Babbitt Johnson and other environmentalists lobbied South Dakota governor Carl Gunderson, who halted the Mount Rushmore project until the end of his term". Would that be interesting enough? It could still use some rewriting. User:Borg_Axoim 7:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Yemeni Union of Peasants

(
)
October 7, 1986 congress of the Democratic Yemeni Union of Peasants
October 7, 1986 congress of the Democratic Yemeni Union of Peasants
Moved to mainspace by Soman (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 377 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Soman (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. Hi User:Soman - thanks for your work on the article. Any idea about the ultimate fate of the organisation – did it last until Yemeni unification in 1990? ITBF (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find anything definitive, I would have presumed its history ended with unification in 1990. Unlike youth organization and trade unions that continued post unification, it appears that Afid was comparatively weaker and would not have endured without state patronage. But looking here https://www.adengad.net/news/693324 and https://www.addalinews.com/Print/16352 there are mentions of a Peasants Union in the Southern movement... unsure if there is any organizational connection. For the purpose of this article I think we can end the article history with 1990 for now, though. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Soman: I've given this a review. I'm ready to pass this, but I'm blah on the hook. Do you have any others? Also, you need to anser the question about when it closed, or if it still exists. --evrik (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that the connection between the national constitution and a civil society organization is the most hookworthy factoid here. The only other option I see would the arrest of the chairman in 1978 or the cooperation agreements with East Germany. As per the closure of the organization, I don't have any source of an exact date of disbanding and it is quite likely that there was no official or formalized disbanding. When South Yemen ceased to exist, presumably the organization went quietly defunct. --Soman (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you propose some alt hooks? Also work into the piece that, "it is quite likely that there was no official or formalized disbanding. When South Yemen ceased to exist, presumably the organization went quietly defunct." --evrik (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't add speculation in the article mainspace, without any reference. I think it is clear from context that the organization ceased to function at some point around Yemeni unification, but the reader will have to connect the dots. --Soman (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The hook is bleh, and the article is incomplete without something that says how the group ended. Would you like another reviewer? --evrik (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on April 15

Roman roads in Judaea

(
)
Created by Owenglyndur (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Owenglyndur (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: This nomination still needs work. As it's your first nomination, I'm happy to give you time to improve this. But, at minimum, you need to settle on an interesting hook with a reliable source that you can clearly cite for it. Unsourced sections need to either be removed, or reliable sources cited inline with them. Grnrchst (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion: if you find a source for current use of the same routes, that might be interesting (enough)? FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as rejected due to a lack of response from Owenglyndur. If they do not respond in the next few days, this can be closed as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720, it appears that Owenglyndur responded to your original post on their talk page on 5 May rather than here, and made a number of edits to the article that same day. Do issues remain? Also pinging original reviewer Grnrchst. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be ok with passing this review now, as the biggest issues with the article and hook have been sufficiently addressed. There's still some bits that lack inline citations, but some of them make clear what they're citing in the text and others are rather minor things in larger paragraphs that contain inline citations elsewhere. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments i will work on them. I will let you know once its ready. So we will be able to publish the DYK then? Owenglyndur (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hook should be a Monty Python reference imo. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on April 16

Articles created/expanded on April 17

Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park

(
)
Created by P199 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 36 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC). General eligibility:[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: --evrik (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @P199 and Evrik: I don't feel that comfortable with including a promotional quote from the park's manager on the main page. What else is there? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if we change the sentence to this, "The canoe route through the Ottertooth Creek canyon [has been described as] especially difficult and seldom travelled, but rewarding for its "unusual and spectacular scenery of rapids, waterfalls, talus boulders and steep canyons."? There are few independent sources. --evrik (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This park is notable. I also think the hook is fine as written with the current sourcing. I'm struggling to find a solution that makes you happy. --evrik (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Evrik. There are tons of sources, just not scholarly/academic ones (obviously, I don't want to use blogs and travel accounts). But an official government-issued work (i.e. Reference #3) should be more than acceptable. Furthermore note that this is not a marketing brochure or some other promotional material. So, if they say that the route "presents the canoeist with severe travel obstacles and minimal campsites" and "one is rewarded with unusual and spectacular scenery...", then that is rather factual and authoritative. It should not cause such trepidation... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: The more I think about it, your hesitation to use ALT1 (or original hook for that matter) is unwarranted. The source is not a trivial travel blog or promo piece, but an authoritative government document, which clearly is a WP:RS. Therefore ALT1 should be more than acceptable. If you still don't think so, we should seek a 4th opinion. FWIW, DYK regularly has POV quotes in the hook. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, perhaps this is just me being overly cautious. In any case, DYK has a few active promoters aside from me, so I'm sure we'll get another opinion sooner rather than later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too would question the dueness of the park's manager singing its praises.--Launchballer 21:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, this is a reputable government source describing an aspect of the park. @P199: It may be easier to just write a new hook. I'd offer one, but then I can't approve it.--evrik (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on April 18

Zapad 2009

(
)
Landing craft Mordowija 782 during Zapad 2009
Landing craft Mordowija 782 during Zapad 2009
5x expanded by Piotrus (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 507 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

PS. I forgot to mention - there are plenty of images available for this hook. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Zapad_2009 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to add one of these to the nom for consideration.--Launchballer 19:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I am not sure how to do it post-nom. But I'd suggest File:Zapad-2009 military exercises.jpg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By finding another nom that does it successfully and adapting it. I'll leave it to you to add a caption and will call for a reviewer.--Launchballer 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Caption: "Landing craft Mordowija 782 during Zapad 2009". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Launchballer 23:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New enough (5x expansion), long enough, well-written. Image is appropriately licensed as far as I can determine. QPQ is done. The hook is interesting and supported by an inline citation but not supported in its current format by what is written in the article. The article is a bit ambiguous on this point. On the one hand it asserts that "[...] it also simulated an amphibious landing in Poland, as well as - and most controversially - a nuclear attack against Poland (hitting Warsaw)." In my reading, this is a claim that the exercise did in fact contain such a simulation. Later, however, it is stated that "Other sources noted that the exercise involved nuclear-capable ballistic missiles (Iskander), but not necessarily a simulation of a nuclear attack on another country." I think this could be easily solved by re-phrasing the first sentence, but it should be resolved before I give the green light. Otherwise all criteria are fulfilled. Yakikaki (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yakikaki: Can I trouble you to suggest an alt hook with a revised wording that I can then review and adopt? I am not sure what exact minor wording change you suggest, but I am pretty sure I'd be fine with it and I'd propose it myself if I wasn't too tired to figure it out myself now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt 1a ... that Russian and Belarussian Zapad 2009 military exercise about repelling a NATO attack might have included simulated nuclear strikes on another country?
@Piotrus and Yakikaki: thoughts? --evrik (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with the original hook, and Alt 1a doesn't solve the problem. The issue, which I think is very easily fixed, is that the article isn't clear on the point whether it might have included a simulated nuclear strikes on another country, or whether it in fact did. That needs to be clarified. I can then greenlight it. Yakikaki (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yakikaki, The article cites the sources; some of which say this happened and some which are more cautious. Not sure how to word it better than what we already have, both in the hook and in the article. If you think you have a better wording, be bold. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it for you. You'll need another reviewer to do the review again, though. Yakikaki (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe User:Evrik would like to do this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will approve the original hook. I can't approve my hook, but will leave that for the promoter. 15:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
With sources disagreeing, I don't think we should be front paging one or the other. I'd like to see a completely different hook.--Launchballer 11:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, Yakikaki, and Evrik: see the above comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, what is needed of me? --evrik (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in the nomination... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see what is wrong with the hook. The wording "might have" explicitly reflects the fact that sources are not agreeing on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Piotrus. The hook is neutral, and good. Yakikaki (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my objection then, but I note that of the six sources next to that claim, all four of the English-language sources are unequivocal that it did happen.--Launchballer 12:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 19

Georgi Romanov

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Created by Blaylockjam10 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Bruxton: It’s under “Regular Season (Complete Stats)”. It looks like it may only be visible on a computer. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I need a premium membership to view. I will leave this to another reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If "S TEAM LEAGUE GP GD GAA SV% GA SV SO W-L-T TOI" and "2022-23 Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg KHL 1 4 - - - - 0 0-0-1 0:00" means what I think it means, then a) you don't need a premium membership to view and b) I think the hook checks out with the source, depending on what "W-L-T" means, although I haven't yet looked at the article. I'm a bit worried about the phrases "submit stats/facts" and "edit profile" I found on the source - what makes it reliable?--Launchballer 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer I saw the same, which made me feel like it was a contributor site. Honestly I was just lost on that page. I think W is win L is loss and T is tie. It is a clever hook which drew me to the nomination, but then I found myself lost for a half hour clicking on pull down menus until I got to a paywall. @BeanieFan11: may be able to help. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the TOI part of the Elite Prospects link but based on how he played in the game that would make sense. NHL says that he was the goaltender for only the shootout portion in his only game, which would mean that he "officially" had zero minutes since the shootout isn't timed. (Also, I've come across Elite Prospects a number of times – they seem pretty reliable (don't think I've seen an incorrect stat, although I've only used them in writing ~10 hockey articles) and seem to have a staff – also cited ~20,000 times). I'd say it's good for approving as long as the article itself is fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blaylockjam10 I located the minutes played after being guided. Earwig determined that there is some minor WP:CLOP which needs to be addressed. Also probably not a DYK issue, but consider that we probably do not need a section for three words - it should be combined somewhere. Also the lead should introduce/summarize more of the article; right now it is a single sentence. The hook is interesting and the article is neutral with the correct inline citations. Created on April 19 nominated April 26 so the article is new enough and with 2344 the article is long enough. Bruxton (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]





Articles created/expanded on April 20

Articles created/expanded on April 21

Articles created/expanded on April 22

Nama assemblage

(
)
5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Would you be able to clarify what is being stated in the second sentence of the "Biota" section? the middle portion regarding the 550ma seems to be out of place as currently written.--Kevmin § 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I agree it wasn't the clearest way to word it. The Nama Assemblage is often defined chronologically (as the fauna from ~550 to ~539 million years ago, or from the first appearance of Cloudina to the first appearance of Treptichnus), but sometimes on the basis of fauna, with holdover fauna from the previous epochs not being considered part of it, with the chronological definition then called "Terminal Ediacaran biozone". It was mostly to explain why some of the fauna isn't always considered Nama, but that could be further expanded instead in the "Definition" section. I have plans for further expansion of the article (currently in User:Chaotic Enby/sandbox), and I will be happy to reorganize the article and expand it further if needed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: Based on the above, can this be approved? If not, what needs to happen to get approval? Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the article is still a bit hard to parse for anyone reading it for the first time, but it does conform to the sources used. The article is new enough and long enough, with reliable sourcing and no close paraphrasing identified. I think we are good to go at this point.--Kevmin § 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, Kevmin, Z1720, and AirshipJungleman29: sorry for last minute pull, I checked this set earlier today but only just had access to a computer to edit... I have to say it took me a long time to figure out what was going on with this hook, it doesn't seem to bear that much resemblance to anything that's in the article at first glance. After reading some of the linked articles and based on what Kevmin says on the nom page above, I assume the sentence we're looking at for this one is "The Nama assemblage is bounded from the earlier White Sea assemblage and later Cambrian period by two major episodes of faunal turnover, considered to be pulses of the end-Ediacaran extinction". But I think there are several issues with this that make it not compliant with WP:DYKHOOK at the moment, in that there are aspects of the hook not found in the linked bolded article. Firstly, the hook links to Vendobionta, with no corresponding link to that page in the article; and it pipes that link to "enigmatic early animals", again something not discussed here. Secondly, the last part of the hook says "right before most groups of animals alive today appeared" with a link to Cambrian explosion, once again a mentioned fact and a link not found directly in the article. We know it's the Cambrian period from the article, but would also need to directly say and cite that this means when most groups of animals alive today appeared. I suspect this could be corrected with a few choice cited additions to the article, but would like to see this before we run it on the main page rather than later. A good interesting article anyway, I didn't know anything about this. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I still have a lot of stuff I plan to add to the article (including a whole section about how the Nama relates to the Cambrian explosion, cf studies such as Darroch et al. 2018) so I probably missed that not everything was in the blurb yet. I'll try to add all of this asap! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on April 23

Articles created/expanded on April 24

Articles created/expanded on April 25

Gyōji

(
)
Sumo referee Kimura Shōtarō with a Pokémon-inspired kimono in January 2022
Sumo referee Kimura Shōtarō with a Pokémon-inspired kimono in January 2022
Improved to Good Article status by OtharLuin (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

OtharLuin (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • My first thought reading the hook was "my sphincter, the games were released in 1996!". The hook should make it clear that the games were in fact released then - simply adding "the 1996 games" will take the hook above WP:DYK200, so something else will have to give.--Launchballer 07:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the mention of the year of release is so important that it needs to be added, the hook is centered on the kimono and I'm already specifying that it's the game's 25th anniversary. The hook is long enough as it is. - OtharLuin (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which means as written the hook implies they were released in 1997! That said, I am a huge Pokémaniac (even to the point I spent much of the pandemic writing Pokémon-themed fanfiction, which at some point I should rewrite from scratch) and perhaps I'm being too overprotective. An actual reviewer can adjudicate on this.--Launchballer 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this a limited-time promotion or now ongoing/continual? "Since the January 2022 sumo tournament, gyoji can be seen" makes it sound like the latter, while the sources give the impression that they were only talking about the one tournament. If it was just for a limited time then we should rephrase and use past tense. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No limit in time. The Japan Sumo Association made a set of kimono to celebrate the anniversary but gyoji can still be seen wearing the said pokémon-inspired kimono in the ring today. (another source) - OtharLuin (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination still needs a reviewer. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OtharLuin, Launchballer, Z1720, and Adumbrativus:I've proposed an alternative:
  • Alt2... that since 2022 , gyōji can be seen in the ring wearing Pokémon-inspired kimonos to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Pokémon Red and Blue? --evrik (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominated in time. GA status. No QPQ needed. Original hook is okay. I'll leave the decision for the promoter. --evrik (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with me at the exception of the link for honbasho, it's misleading because a sumo ring is a dohyo. So I propose

The Sheep Eaters (film)

(
)

Source: https://elonet.finna.fi/Record/kavi.elonet_elokuva_101068?lng=en-gb

    • Reviewed:
Created by Juustila (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Juustila (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

ALT1: ...that a Finnish film The Sheep Eaters was shown on TV while another channel was showing Ice Hockey World Championships match between Finland and the Soviet Union, still gaining over million views? Source: https://elonet.finna.fi/Record/kavi.elonet_elokuva_101068?lng=en-gb
Juustila (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
194 characters. Full review needed.--Launchballer 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New, long, hook verified (though I'd trim the hook more). A couple concerns:
    • Copyright violation is an issue even in translation. Unless Elonet's text is in the public domain, the first two paragraphs of the Production section/second paragraph of Filming are much too close and should be rewritten.
    • Why is the article not titled Lampaansyöjät (film)? None of the sources seem to use that English name, nor do databases like IMDb. I suggest moving it to the Finnish title unless English sources actually use the translated version.
    • Smaller note, the article mentions a 2019 TV presentation without having introduced it.
Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyin Xingjun

(
)
Painting of Taiyin Xingjun, the Western Xia (982–1227), in Hermitage Museum.
Painting of Taiyin Xingjun, the Western Xia (982–1227), in Hermitage Museum.
Created by TheGreatPeng (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

TheGreatPeng (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi, who will review my DYK? And how many days do I need to wait for a review? TheGreatPeng (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please be patient. This is a volunteer effort, and the average wait time for a review could be around two to three weeks, perhaps sooner or later depending on who is active. Please be mindful of WP:DYK200. It may help to present alternate hooks for consideration. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it was too long to wait; even my second DYK was reviewed. TheGreatPeng (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is sourced well, no plagiarism, new enough, long enough, but needs another pass over for grammar, spelling, and tone. Article could also use clarification about which aspects of worship of this god apply to China/specific regions of China, and which to Taiwan. Hook should also be simplified. How about: ...that Taiyin Xingjun (pictured) is the original Chinese moon goddess, but is often confused with Chang'e?

Luiysia (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • How about: ... that Taiyin Xingjun (pictured) is the original Chinese moon goddess, while the more famous Chang'e considered her incarnation?

TheGreatPeng (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Luiysia: pls finish your review. Thanks TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 26

Hong Kong v Inter Miami

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination so please remind me if there is anything missing or should be improved. Thanks.
Created by Cypp0847 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

~~ J. Dann 15:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • What a ride that article was. QPQ not needed. Earwig has a high score for copyvio detection, but that's entirely due to Messi's paragraph-long statement in the "Departure and Japan trip" section, which has an inline citation to the flagged source. Referencing is adequate and length/newness criteria fulfilled. Hook is definitely interesting and cited in source, not cited inline as exact phrasing but separately so. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cypp0847 and Juxlos: I have tagged the article for copyediting, as there are grammar-related issues throughout the article (tenses, for instance, are very often incorrect). This needs to be resolved before a DYK run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Kenyon

(
)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Feel free to share your alt blurbs.
Created by Xoak (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

X (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reviewing... New enough, long enough, Earwig's copyvio <1%. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Thank you for this interesting article. It reads well and follows the main refernece closely. QPQ not required. Hook is in article and referenced, but is quite general. Can you think of a more specific hook to her? Whispyhistory (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALT1: ... that editions of Josephine Kenyon's book Healthy Babies Are Happy Babies increasingly moved away from their original recommendations of rigid scheduling to "on-demand" scheduling based on the child? Source: Opitz, Donald: 'During the course of the book’s five revisions ... her trend in pediatric advice shifted from an emphasis on following rigid schedules to attending to a child’s “on-demand” schedule.' Possible Alt, 198 characters, suggested by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you... looks good. How about a hook containing 'good housekeeping'? There may be something in this reference p. 102. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approving ALT2... I don't think the quote marks are needed as it appears a common term when I searched literature on the topic. Possibly link the book. The hook is in the article and in the main source. Thank you both. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Articles created/expanded on April 27

1973 Eclipse Flight of Concorde 001

(
)
Created by Samsmachado (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Samsmachado (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article was nominated within the time scale and is long enough. Earwig suggests no copyright violation—a short quotation is properly attributed. The image is PD. QPQ stands at 4—not required. All references to which I have access check out, except "The Concorde's 74 minutes of totality remains the longest total eclipse observation." I couldn't find this in Hatherill (but it may be in Pappalardo, which I have taken on trust). Pappalardo is also the attribution for both hooks, so assuming GF. The "hold" may be quickly disposed of if Hatherill isn't used for "longest flight"

This is only my second DYK review—oversight welcome. --AntientNestor (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Hatherill for longest flight. I did add a 2010 Wired article instead to try and back it up with a source that wasn't paywalled. (Grossman: "The longest totality ever observed by an experimental aircraft was 74 minutes, captured by a supersonic Concorde aircraft in 1973. .") Samsmachado (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did just go through this with Earwig, and actually there are a couple of phrases that need changing.--Launchballer 11:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just tweaked some of the phrases Earwig flagged. Mostly it's picking out attributed quotations and a few things that I would call broadly 'terms', in the sense that they can't really be re-worded because that's just what they are (ie. "four twin-spool Olympus 593 engines", " oxygen atoms in the Earth's atmosphere", "the path of a total solar eclipse"). Launchballer, if you have any specific concerns within those, please flag them. Samsmachado (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Gatovsky

(
)
  • ... that Lev Gatovsky was one of the first economists to create a theoretical framework to analyze the Soviet economy?
    • Reviewed:
5x expanded by FranGallego33 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

FranGallego33 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • 5X expansion reverted because the added content was copyright protected. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably safe to reject the nom for now then? Juxlos (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has still been 5x expanded; it just now has empty sections, and so can't run per WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Suggest giving FranGallego33 some time to fill the gaps in their own words.--Launchballer 09:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that only part of what FrabGallego33 added was reverted for copyright infringement. My mistake. David notMD (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a Devastating Turn of Events

(
)
  • Source: From NME: "But it was a later trip to LA in early 2023 where Chinouriri’s anxieties began to amplify. Emerging musicians often take trips to LA for writing sessions; some fly out four or so times a year, but visit for no more than a fortnight. Chinouriri, who has a fear of flying, elected to stay for five."
  • ALT1: ... that with her debut album What a Devastating Turn of Events, Rachel Chinouriri aimed to tackle the underrepresentation of Black female artists in the indie scene? Source: From NME: "Chinouriri wants to recreate the visual and sonic aesthetics of that era on her debut. The noughties represents a period of her life where she was eagerly learning about British pop culture icons such as Alexa Chung, Oasis, The Libertines. Taking inspiration from this era is Chinouriri’s way to reclaim her position in British society and the indie scene, where Black womanhood is routinely ignored and misrepresented."
  • ALT2: ... that Rachel Chinouriri decided to include the English flag on the cover art of What a Devastating Turn of Events in order to celebrate her Black British identity? Source: From The Guardian: "Chinouriri, however, decided to use the St George’s Cross as an act of reclamation. 'For Black people and POC, that flag’s not something people are proud of,' she says, adding that some people around her discouraged her from using it on her album cover. But on her single 'The Hills', Chinouriri sings about rediscovering her British identity after feeling lonely during a period spent in Los Angeles. 'No matter the trauma I’ve had from being raised in the UK, being Black British and being the only Black person in my neighbourhood, it’s made me the person who I am,' she says. 'There is a culture within being Black British that is distinct and strong, and harbours creativity.' Using the flag is 'a celebration – taking back this thing and saying: you can’t get rid of me'."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Saturn (SZA song)
  • Comment: Thank you to QuietHere and all the people who took a look at this article! The album will actually be released next Friday, so I don't have any specific request for the date of publication. I must address that I've "recycled" my QPQ submission from a previous entry of mine that was rejected (due to my big mistake): is that still OK?
Moved to mainspace by Oltrepier (talk) and QuietHere (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Oltrepier (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: Not a review, but I find ALT0 nothingburgery, and ALT2 would be more interesting if it read "Black British identity".--Launchballer 09:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I agree on ALT2, so I've slightly edited it accordingly. Thanks for the feedback! Oltrepier (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, well-sourced hooks that summarize the quotes well. Particularly, ALT1 and ALT 2 are the most interesting. This is my first review, so I'm not sure about the QPQ. Another review is needed.Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to take Saturn as a QPQ, on the grounds that it hasn't been 'paid', i.e. 2024 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game wasn't actually reviewed. The Professional ratings table interferes with the Track listing - any chance that section could be expanded?--Launchballer 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer and Heidi Pusey BYU: Thank you for the feedback! Yes, that section is definitely too short at the moment, and I'll try to work on it as soon as possible. Oltrepier (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Done! This is the first time I edited an album article from scratch, so let me know if there's anything else I should fix! Oltrepier (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heidi Pusey BYU: I agree with Launchballer, the QPQ can be used here. Go ahead and take credit for the review. Since Alt2 seems to be the preferred hook, I'm striking the others. BTW, I checked this over and will put the check down for you. --evrik (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Wesker

(
)
Created by Greenish Pickle! (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations. Article has been promoted into GA last week (7 days).

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reviewing this:
  • 1. Each boldlinked article is new enough.
  • 2. Each boldlinked article is new enough.
  • 3. Every source is reliable and approved by the project.
  • 4. It is presentable.
  • 5. Hook is presented with a reliable source.
  • 6. ALT 2 seems more interesting than the other ones since it involves his creation and portrayal. The other ones seems to be interpretations of third party sources.
  • 7. The two non-free images are given sources.
  • 8. The user has less than 5 DYK nominations found.
  • 9. There are no issues.

Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: If this hook is approved, please post the green tick below, using this code: {{subst:DYKyes}}. If not, please add the question mark below, using this code: {{subst:DYK?}}. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I see is the hook. ALT 2 is the only written from a creator's pespective rather than third party source which will interest more people.Tintor2 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) @Greenish Pickle!: Pinging just in case. Sorry for the delay. It's been since I reviewed a DYK nomination. I think I already suggested ALT 2 in discord.Tintor2 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tintor2 Hey, I mean Alt 2 is fine. I don't have anything to do here actually. If you think Alt 2 is fine then you can replace it now with green tick like the user said above. Thanks. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Articles created/expanded on April 28

Olga Lander

(
)
Defusing explosives, 1943, photographed by Lander
Defusing explosives, 1943, photographed by Lander
  • ... that Olga Lander used a fixed 50 mm focal length camera, requiring her to work close to the dangerous war-time subjects she photographed (example pictured)?
Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 80 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting life and work, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I approve the hook, and it goes well with the current trend for short "hooky" wording. I wonder, however, if - since her name doesn't give much clue to where she comes from - some hint at place and/or time might add interest. I found interesting, for example, that she took pics in both world wars. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about including her photo, which - with a year in the caption - would add some time? It would illustrate the hook perfectly although it is not strictly she who is pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: I've added the photo as you suggest. Regarding the hook info, if you don't tell them everything, they have to click through to find out, right? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the image which tells what I missed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    adding to approval: the image is licensed and a great illustration of the kind of photos she took. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation of the Communist Party of India

(
)
Banner of the Communist Party of India
Banner of the Communist Party of India
  • Source: Kiran Saxena (1990). Trade Union Movement and the National Movement. South Asian Publishers. p. 128. ISBN 978-81-7003-116-1.
Moved to mainspace by Soman (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 380 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Soman (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is a very nicely-written and well-researched article, with quite the interesting hook for DYK. Excellent work on this! Only real issue is that it's currently tagged as an orphan, this can be remedied by linking to this article from at least one other article. Ping me once this is done and I'll be happy to approve this. (I'm also not convinced that the picture is necessary for this kind of a hook, but its inclusion is up to the DYK coordinators) Grnrchst (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boroline

(
)
  • ... that the antiseptic cream Boroline was marketed to appeal to nationalistic sentiments?
5x expanded by Sohom Datta (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Sohom (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article recently expanded. No copyvio detected, and QPQ is done. Hook is verified in sources and cited inline. Preference for original hook. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Days of '98 Show

(
)
  • Source: Spude, Robert L. S. (1983). Skagway, District of Alaska, 1884–1912: Building the Gateway to the Klondike. Fairbanks, Alaska: Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks. p. 158. Retrieved 2024-04-27 – via Google Books.

    The book notes: "The Eagles acquired the structure, remodelled it as a theater/hall, and now present a "Days of 98" show every summer, Alaska's longest running show."

Created by Cunard (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 73 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Cunard (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 29

Eurovision Song Contest 1991

(
)
Carola
Carola
Improved to Good Article status by Sims2aholic8 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Guilty as Sin?

Camping in Alaska

(
)
  • ... that the Camping in Alaska song "C U in da Ballpit" was written in two hours after the band realized they rented too much time in the studio?
Created by ThaesOfereode (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Song titles ignore stylisations per MOS:TITLECAPS; for the hook, the song should be rendered "C U in da Ballpit". I'll leave it to you to update the article and the hook (most likely ALT0, as opinions can change).--Launchballer 14:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full review needed.--Launchballer 16:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeniia Subbotina

(
)
  • Source: Shilov, A. A.; Karnaukhova, M. G., eds. (1932). "Субботина, Евгения Дмитриевна" [Subbotina, Evgeniia Dmitrievna]. Деятели революционного движения в России [ru] (in Russian). Vol. 4. Moscow: Society of Former Political Prisoners and Exiled Settlers. p. 1635–1636. OCLC 749336544. С помощью А. Лу. кашевича пыталась 28 янв. 1879 г. бежать; добралась до Иркутска, где была задержана 29 янв. т. г. Признанная ген.-губернаторок виновной в самовольн. отлучке, подвергнута 7-дневн. аресту при Иркутск. тюремн. Зам. к. азатем выслана в Верхоленск (Иркутск. губ.) с ением за ней особ. [...] В 1881 г. переведена в Иркутск, где жила с В. Александровой-Натансон, Принимала вместе с нею участие в денежной помощи и в организации побегов Е. Брешко-Брешковской из Баргузина и Е. Ковальской и С. Богомолец из Иркутск. [With the help of A. L. Kashevich she tried to escape on 28 January 1879; she reached Irkutsk, where she was detained on 29 January of that year. Found guilty of AWOL by the Governor-General, she was subjected to a 7-day arrest at the Irkutsk prison. She was deported to Verkholensk (Irkutsk province) and then deported with a special charge. [...] In 1881, she was transferred to Irkutsk, where she lived with V. Alexandrova-Natanson; she took part with her in providing monetary aid and in organising the escape of E. Breshko-Breshkovskaya from Barguzin and E. Kovalskaya and S. Bogomolets from Irkutsk.]
Created by Grnrchst (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 35 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Grnrchst (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thanks for creating this. I've read some interesting first person accounts that mention the women Russian exiles. Please tag me once the missing citation is added. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: I'm confused as to why this claim needs a citation? She collaborated on Lavrov's Vpered, was involved in a Narodnik organisation, was tried in two mass trials of Narodnik revolutionaries and actively organised with other Narodniks for decades. Is it not exceedingly obvious that this was the movement she was involved in? --Grnrchst (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: Yes, but all of that relies on the reader having knowledge of what that movement was and who it involved. For a Wikipedia reader who follows the hook to a topic that they aren't knowledgeable about, none of that is obvious. So I would suggest adding a sentence or phrase later in the body that in which you explicitly use the term Narodnik, with a citation to something that clarifies or at least uses that term. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DellaXOZ

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 225 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Launchballer 12:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out to source. Strong preference for ALT0 as more distinctive than ALT1 or ALT2. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Southeast Asia heat wave

(
)
Created by Robertsky (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: recently created, QPQ done, interesting hook that is cited. Looks good to go, but please expand the lede a little bit. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky and PSA: An article with a lede that short would deserve {{lead too short}}, so yeah, what Makeandtoss said.--Launchballer 09:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the lead, sought to provide an overview without simply repeating country by country. CMD (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better, although I've just noticed that the Laos and Malaysia sections are pretty short. Possibly worth merging into something like 'Other countries'?--Launchballer 07:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about merging countries, I would expect those sections to be where the article might grow (and where editors who click on DYKs might be tempted to pitch in?). There is some specific reporting, for example Reliefweb page on Malaysia. CMD (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that (at least) the Malaysia section could be expanded somewhat (in fact I'm pretty sure it would deserve {{expand}}).--Launchballer 10:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on April 30

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: [9]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [10].
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1221442413"