Template talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DYK queue status

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

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 1
April 13 1
April 14 4 1
April 15 1
April 17 1 1
April 18 1 1
April 19 1
April 20 2 1
April 24 1 1
April 25 3
April 26 4 3
April 27 3 2
April 28 6 4
April 29 8 4
April 30 11 6
May 1 9 6
May 2 6 2
May 3 5 5
May 4 6 4
May 5 9 5
May 6 10 7
May 7 11 7
May 8 10 3
May 9 11 7
May 10 14 6
May 11 8 6
May 12 14 8
May 13 8 5
May 14 11 8
May 15 8 6
May 16 9 3
May 17 14 4
May 18 8 6
May 19 4 1
May 20 9 2
May 21 4
Total 238 128
Last updated 08:43, 21 May 2024 UTC
Current time is 08:45, 21 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 16

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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 6

Articles created/expanded on March 11

Articles created/expanded on March 12

Articles created/expanded on March 14

Articles created/expanded on March 19

Articles created/expanded on March 21

Articles created/expanded on March 24

Articles created/expanded on March 25

Articles created/expanded on March 26

Articles created/expanded on March 28

Articles created/expanded on March 30

Articles created/expanded on March 31

Articles created/expanded on April 1

Articles created/expanded on April 2

Articles created/expanded on April 3

Articles created/expanded on April 4

Articles created/expanded on April 5

Articles created/expanded on April 6

Articles created/expanded on April 7

Articles created/expanded on April 8

Articles created/expanded on April 9

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on April 10

Articles created/expanded on April 11

Articles created/expanded on April 12

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

Stonewall Inn

(
)
Exterior of the Stonewall Inn
Exterior of the Stonewall Inn
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 650 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.

Epicgenius (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Ooh, Stonewall! Article eligibility and condition checks out, became a good article a few days ago. I like the ALT0 here best, though I would suggest linking those names. Assuming good faith on the sourcing. Obviously, going to have to wait til the QPQ is resolved to officially check this off. And I think June 28 would be a wonderful day for this hook. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Articles created/expanded on April 16

Articles created/expanded on April 17

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: [7]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [8].
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=1219328891"