Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Did you know ...?"
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Nominations (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP:DYKA
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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
October 9 1
October 25 1
October 31 1
November 2 1
November 3 1
November 4 1 1
November 12 1
November 13 1
November 14 2
November 15 4 2
November 16 3 1
November 17 1 1
November 18 6 2
November 19 5 1
November 20 1
November 21 5
November 22 2 1
November 23 3
November 24 1
November 25 5 2
November 26 4 2
November 27 7 4
November 28 17 6
November 29 13 9
November 30 13 6
December 1 17 11
December 2 11 6
December 3 14 9
December 4 11 6
December 5 11 5
December 6 6 3
December 7 7 4
December 8 4
Total 181 82
Last updated 18:43, 8 December 2021 UTC
Current time is 19:28, 8 December 2021 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing.

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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.

Instructions for project members[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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: Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg.
2) Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
a. Any outstanding issue following Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg 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.
1) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
a. 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.
a. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
b. 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.
a. 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[edit]

  • 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]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

Pankratius Pfeiffer

Created by Ergo Sum (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New article that was created on 9 October 2021‎ is 3,212 characters and nominated on the same day. No copyvios detected and duplication detector of [1][2][3][4][5] reveal no close paraphrasing issues (AGF PDF docs which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 103 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 4 and 5 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Too many red flags here. If he really saved hundreds of Jews, you would expect plenty of confirmation of this in scholarly sources and him to be recognized by Yad Vashem. I can't count the number of times that I've seen mainstream newspapers print completely false stories about Jews being rescued during the holocaust, so better sources are definitely needed to confirm these extraordinary claims. Thanks Brigade Piron for letting me know about this. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have to admit I'm just a bit perplexed by the argument. Except in fairly uncommon cases of multiple RS that contradict each other, we don't generally recognize any "hierarchy" of reliable sources. Sources are either RS or they are not. So I'm not sure what kind of sources you have in mind as "better" sources. The ones currently cited in the article are all RS, so that should be the end of it. I might add that if you seek some manner of official imprimatur in the vein of Yad Vashem, the City of Rome named a street after him.
  • Your point about why there isn't more extensive coverage of this historical figure is well taken but can easily be attributed to the fact that all manner of historical figures are lost to history, especially those who are notable really for one major event in their life that did not come to light until years later, as is the case here. Indeed, one of the RS in this article describes Pfeiffer as being "lost to history." I'm adding the new review icon here so that we can get at least one more editor's evaluation of this. Ergo Sum 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
There are very few people who actually saved hundreds of Jews during the Holocaust and plenty of hoaxes that were reported as truth by various news organizations—for example Necdet Kent. In other cases, actual rescue did occur but the numbers are greatly exaggerated and repeated uncritically by news organizations, such as Raoul Wallenberg. If the story is true you would expect to see it covered in many more credible sources. There are plenty of cases where a source is reliable for some info but not others. For example, someone's CV is often reliable for "they worked at X organization" but not "they are a world expert in Z". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I should say that I share Buidhe's concerns. I think saying that "all manner of historical figures are lost to history" rather side-steps the sheer volume of historical scholarship on all aspects of the Holocaust. On a more banal note, I think part of the problem is that the sources cited are, essentially, all journalistic sources published by explicitly Catholic or Salvatorian outlets. The specific sources cited for the "saved" claim are Romereports (I am not familiar with this outlet, but the typo in the video does not inspire confidence) and a self-published Salvatorian newsletter. Neither are scholarly sources and both are, again, explicitly confessional in nature. I think WP:BIASED may on point in a highly sensitive issue touching on the wider disputes about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. Do we know what the Samerski book says, for example? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe It is true that the sources cover Catholic issues, but only the Salvatorian one is actually published by a Catholic institution. I need not go into how varied Catholic newspapers are in their adherence/faithfulness to the Catholic hierarchy and beliefs (see e.g. National Catholic Reporter versus National Catholic Register).
  • But more direclty, there actually are many scholarly RS that discussion Pfeiffer and his works in Nazi-occupied Rome. You will find them on the other language versions of this article. The problem is that I do not read Italian or German well enough to use them in the article. Coverage is not the issue. It is English language coverage. Ergo Sum 13:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: perhaps add the word "reportedly" before "saved". I'm inclined to accept in good faith the sources used as reliable – none of them have not been deprecated nor deemed generally unreliable. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
DYK should not cover unconfirmed reports or rumors so I strongly disagree with that suggestion. As well as assuming sources are reliable if they've never been discussed at WP:RSN, which disregards important parts of WP:RS such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no issue with citing sources in Italian or German, but if it's not confirmed that they support the content then it's incorrect to assume that they do. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: I tend to think that statements are either supported by RS and written in wikivoice or they're not accepted at all. For that reason, I shy away from words like "reportedly." I reiterate though that I think it's quite clear there's nothing wrong with the sources currently used. They're all RS, so that should be the end of it. Hence, why I think your initial review was satisfactory. Ergo Sum 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: agreed. I'm still of the view that the hook satisfies criteria 3b. Criteria 4 states that "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". That is not the case here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
You're still ignoring the principle in RS that context matters, and some sources are reliable for some but not other info. The two of us who actually write on Holocaust related topics have expressed that the sources cited are not reliable for the exceptional claims being made. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am of the opinion that the sources used are reliable for the info in the hook. The fact that you and Brigade Piron write on Holocaust-related topics is irrelevant – it does not confer a veto over hooks pertaining to that subject. By that logic, I should be able to veto baseball or heraldry hooks ... —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Three of my DYKs promoted (including Coat of arms of the Falkland Islands from August this year) have included the word "reportedly" in the hook, as well as numerous hooks from other editors. Disagree all you want – this is accepted practice at DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I'm aware that you have experience writing about Holocaust-related articles and I put value in your assessment as a solid editor. However, I'm quite comfortable in my ability to vet RS, as well, and my confidence in these sources means I must disagree with your opinion here. Experienced editors do disagree at times, and it is my opinion that I think you have gotten this one wrong; doubtless, you think the same for me. I haven't seen any evidence that these are not RS. Therefore, I recommend if Bloom6132 is inclined to do so, to renew their approval of the hook. In the meantime, I'm going to request the input of additional experienced editors on the DYK talk page. Ergo Sum 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to ping @Bamse, Bermicourt, Jmabel, and Anyfile to see if we can find some reliable sources in other languages. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops, @AnyFile theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently traveling & very busy, so not much help here, I'm afraid. - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
That said, more or less this same case is made in The Pope's Jews: The Vatican's Secret Plan to Save Jews from the Nazis by Gordon Thomas (not currently cited in the article). - Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear as to why the cited sources are unreliable: are we assuming that all information emanating from a Roman Catholic source is unreliable? If so what's the logic? In any case there are dozens of book sources in English, German, French and Italian that mention Pfeiffer, the problem is that few are accessible online. One is an entire biography of Pfeiffer "from baker to Vatican diplomat" which would be useful to track down: Willer, Philomena (2005). P. Pankratius Pfeiffer SDS: (1872-1945); vom Bäckergesellen zum Vatikandiplomat. Pub: Josef Fink. Others that mentions Pfeiffer and the Jews in Rome are:
  • Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
  • Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
  • Sinn (1976), Illegal.
Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
My issue is with the unreliability of journalistic works and popular history, which have in many cases published inaccurate information about rescues of Jews during the Holocaust. If better sources exist, they should be cited instead. An additional question is, do these sources actually support the claim of "hundreds" of Jews rescued by Pfeiffer personally? (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I've now found sources that cover most of the article. Here are more:
Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
Sinn (1976), Illegal.
Prince Constantine of Bavaria (1952) Der Papst.
Layer (1985), Schwäbisches Ehrenbuch - Pfeiffer credited with "saving Rome and other Italian cities including Chieti, Ascoli and Ovieto from destruction and other calamities"
_ (1999). Publik-Forum - Pfeiffer the only German to have a street named after him in Rome and who fought to save Roman Jews.
_ (1960). Bayerische Frömmigkeit - Pfeiffer described as the "Saviour of Rome and other cities in Italy"
Robert Katz has written a number of books - Death in Rome (1967), Black Sabbath (1969), The Battle for Rome (2010) - which all mention Pfeiffer.
Bottum and Dalin (2004). The Pius War has this interesting piece: "7. Pancrazio [sic] Pfeiffer. According to Carroll-Abbing, one of the men used by Pius XII to protest the Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews and intervene for persecuted victims was Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer, superior general of the Salvatorian Fathers, who also served as Pius XII' personal liaison to the German military command in Rome. Because Pfeiffer died tragically in an automobile accident toward the end of the war and thus never took part in the postwar analysis of Pius XII's conduct, many historians have overlooked him. But those who knew him or have researched his life have chronicled his collaborative efforts with Pius XII to rescue Jews and others during the war. See the article "Pfeiffer's List" by Robert Graham, 30 Days, June 1994, pp. 42-46. Prince Constantine of Bavaria's book on Pius XII, The Pope (London: Allan Wingate, 1954) [listed above] contains an excellent section on Pfeiffer, whom he describes as an agent for the pope on behalf of the victims of persecution and the fugitives in hiding" (p. 213). At Pfeiffer's death in May 1945, Vatican Radio paid tribute: "He came into contact with the Commander of the German occupying forces [in Rome in 1943-44]. From that day onwards, he placed his religious and spiritual qualities at the service of many who had been arrested or already condemned to death. He helped countless people in this way, and saved their lives, among them many Jews and other Italian personages. He championed..."
In short there seems to be book evidence for virtually everything stated in the article apart from the specific details of the two incidents where 249 or 400 Jews were rescued. Based on my initial searches my expectation is that those incidents are likely to be recorded in the literature - we just need to be able to access more of the sources. Meanwhile there is no harm in pausing to use some of the above sources, plus those I've added to the Further reading section of the article in order to reinforce the existing references and then review where we are. Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: thoughts? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 07:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the article currently meets DYK requirements. For example, Salvatorians USA Province is not independent of the article subject and therefore is not reliable for self-serving assertions such as "he saved many Jews in Rome from persecution and ultimately death" or "Every day, Pfeiffer visited the Regina Coeli prison and another prison on Via Tasso, where he would often return with freed prisoners who had been sentenced to death." (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: would you still object if the article instead relied on the sources found by Bermicourt? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Depends, the Samerski source looks reliable to me but the book published by "Österreichische Provinz der Salvatorianer" has the same issue of close connection to the article subject. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
All right. @Ergo Sum: I'm not going to promote the nomination without consensus to move forward, so if you want to try and rework the article's sourcing to approval, that can work. If you're not, this nomination should probably stop here. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 19:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: If the issue isn't addressed in a week, I think the best option is to reject this nomination. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have had to push this to the back burner. I will take a look at this tomorrow. Ergo Sum 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That is my fault. This slipped my mind completely this weekend. I will deal with this tonight. Ergo Sum 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added several inline citations to the article, which refer to sources that were (very helpfully) added by Bermicourt. These sources support several of the very specific claims in the article, as well as the general thrust of the article which is in dispute here, namely that Pfeiffer was a liaison and in that capacity saved many Jews and others from the Nazis. In light of these reliable sources supporting the general claims, I think any concern about the pre-existing ones describing some of his more specific actions is ameliorated. There is a trove of additional sources in the Further Reading section that additionally describe in much greater detail Pfeiffer's actions but they are either in a foreign language which I do not adequately read to make use of as citations or are offline. All being said, I think there is now ample sourcing to back up the article's claims. Ergo Sum 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Ergo Sum—@Buidhe:, if this sourcing is up to your standards, we can move ahead. If not, we're probably going back to WT:DYK and asking for more eyes. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 05:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've flagged the specific content in the article that supports the hook as needing a better source. There are other active cleanup tags on the article as well. However, I think there's sufficient sourcing for a modified version of the hook without the words "hundreds of". (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
We could cite "countless" using the ref above instead of "hundreds of". Bermicourt (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
According to the source it's what Vatican Radio said about him after his death. DYK is not for eulogies imo. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not following—is the source unreliable because it's after his death? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it's because it's Catholic presumably... We could always add "according to Vatican Radio..." But better still, we just need to cite the exact text from one of the many non-Catholic book sources and the problem will be solved. Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
And yet another source: O'Reilly (2001) in Forgotten Battles: Italy's War of Liberation 1943-45 states that "the Vatican was able to assist many of Rome's Jews and others sought by the Germans through Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer's intervention with the Germans... His work was recounted by Robert Graham who has written extensively on the Vatican's role in World War II." Bermicourt (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
And another: Bartley (2016) in Catholics Confronting Hitler states that "Father Pancrace [sic] Pfeiffer, a German priest and the superior general of the Salvatorian Order, was the pope's liaison with the German military. Several hundred hostages, including some under sentence of death, owed their release to the efficacious intervention of Father Pfeiffer." I don't know why I'm doing this - you can look up the references yourselves instead of opining and speculating from the sidelines in the classic Wikipedia way. :) Bermicourt (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: Since it seems you have access to several sources that I do not (probably just requires further digging), would you want to add them as inline citations with page numbers, especially to support the proposition regarding hundreds of people saved? Ergo Sum 13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: I think we're taking that as a 'no'—what's your next step? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 21:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not for you to speak for other editors. I'm willing to add one inline citation from those above to support a revised hook, but not to do the nom's job for them. I have other articles to work on. BTW I don't have access to anything more than the internet. Y'all just need to look harder. Bermicourt (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Bermicourt, I don't mean to give answers on your behalf, but I didn't want the nom to rely on someone else to do the work, like you said, especially if that means stalling the nom for twelve days. also, I appreciate your use of y'all :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 08:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:) That and Po' boy is about the extent of my "southern" vocabulary lol. Bermicourt (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
po' boy twangin' the rhythm out, on his kalamazoo / and willy goes into a dance and doubles on kazoo... in all seriousness, though, back to the nomination—Ergo Sum, ball's in your court at the moment theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 18:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what it means to do "nom's job" for them. WP is a collaborative project, so when an editor has something to add to an article, I just encourage them to add it themselves. But that's besides the point. I've done my best to track down these sources and I found several of the major ones relied on by the WP Pfeiffer articles in other languages. At the moment, every proposition in the article is supported by inline citations to reliable sources. For those sources that some have questioned (even though I believe they are solid sources), I have provided citations to multiple sources. Therefore, I think this article is ready. Ergo Sum 04:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
All right, buidhe? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
oops, buidhe? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 25[edit]

Argentine seabass

Argentine seabass near the Ilhas Cagarras, Brazil.
Argentine seabass near the Ilhas Cagarras, Brazil.
  • While bottom trawling is a viable method of commercial fishing for the Argentine seabass, it rarely occurs in areas where trawling is possible? Sources: Sadovy, Y.J. 2010. Acanthistius brasilianus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T154987A4683767. "FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Argentine Seabass Entry". fao.org.

Created by Ryan shell (talk). Self-nominated at 19:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Perhaps Unclear, Wording
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Article needs some inline citations for some statements. Image would be hard to read at 100px, recommend cropping. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 23:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (updated 00:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC))

Comment I've tweaked the wording of some of the prose and added a number of new references. As far as the image goes, I am happy with the dyk entry with or without an image. cheers! Ryan shell (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ryan shell: Appreciate you improving the reference issues. I've cropped the image on the commons and updated here. Do you approve of the cropped image? ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 13:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks great! Thanks for that! Ryan shell (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ryan shell, it seems the hook relies on information from two different sources, but this DYK only cites the one. I am ready to approve if you can add that source here. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Done, Thanks for the reply Ryan shell (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Ryan shell I ran this by a few other veteran editors and was advised that we might need to try making the hook more clear and closer to the sources so the statement isn't more broad than the sources allow. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 01:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Good point! Sorry for the extended hiatus. I've added a smoother version of the hook, modified from the article itself. Hope that helps! Ryan shell (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 31[edit]

Broken toe

Can you spot what bone that would be? :)
Can you spot what bone that would be? :)

Created by HLHJ (talk) and minor contributions by several members of Wikiproject Medicine (talk). Nominated by DrVogel (talk) at 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (no review): I understand the intention, but 88.5.3.2 is a legitimate IP address. Mindmatrix 17:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    I've replaced my "is" with a "may". Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I love this hook. This is far more interesting and "hooky" than I would have believed possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Haha thanks :) It was a moment of inspiration. I wanted to do my best to achieve recognition for HLHJ's excellent article. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing...New, long enough, no copy vio issues. QPQ not required as <5 nominations. Will go through and finalise soon.Whispyhistory (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg... Hook in article and followed by citation to a reference containing hook fact. Image free and clear. I like the caption unless anyone knows of any reason it shouldn't be used. Are we allowed to put :) ? A suggestion: bullet point some of the sentences in the infobox, and add a citation after every sentence....but up to you. Its not completely in the order of medical articles: ie signs & symptoms followed by mechanism followed by diagnosis etc, but I see what you were doing and I see a lot of effort went here. Fulfils DYK. Well done. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC) :)
Symbol question.svg Apologies...I had another look. The article doesn't say " that 88.5.3.2 may not be an IP address,".... it needs another look @DrVogel:. It also needs to say that in the source. Oversight on my part. Please let me know what you wish to do. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory: But that would be impossible, the article can't possibly mention IP addresses, it's about broken toes. The hook is just a hook, and serves its purpose. The example in the hook is actually given in the article, and supported by the sources cited. Dr. Vogel (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@DrVogel:, reaching out for advice...@Philafrenzy: or others can we have advice here please... reminds me of the cobblers one. It's okay with me if allowed (dyk says hook needs to be in article and in the following ref). Whispyhistory (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that exact sequence of numbers in the source, although there are others that look a bit like an IP address. The trouble is, the nominator seems to be the source for it looking a bit like an IP address, which it does, but we can't use that unless the source makes a similar point, which it does not appear to do. Something like this might work (numbers might need to be changed as mentioned):
ALT1 ... that a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the image, it's a fun idea but I don't think we run images as quizzes and the image is simply a skeletal foot, and not closely enough related to the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you kindly... will wait for nominator to respond...no hurry. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your input. I don't see how the hook you're suggesting is hooky. What exactly is wrong with the hook proposed? It's in the article and it's supported by the sources cited.
And the image is directly related to the hook. It engages the reader into a spotting game. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Like everyone else, I rather like the IP-address hook. If we wikilinked IP address, it would be supported in the linked articles, and fulfill the requirement that anyone following the links will be able to verify the hook. I don't think we need sourcing that says that a specific sequence of numbers is an IP address, as we have sources giving the general format of an IP address, and creating an example would be a trivial calculation ("Are all four of these numbers separated by periods in the range 0-255?"):
"IPv4 and IPv6 address formats". www.ibm.com. An IPv4 address has the following format: x . x . x . x where x is called an octet and must be a decimal value between 0 and 255. Octets are separated by periods. An IPv4 address must contain three periods and four octets. The following examples are valid IPv4 addresses:
1 . 2 . 3 . 4
01 . 102 . 103 . 104

This hook is better than any alternative I can think of, and I don't see anything likely to be problematic about it (it's certainly verifiable). I think we might be in agreement on that? So if some rule technically prohibits it, we might have a good case for applying the WP:Ignore all the rules policy. Broken finger is also currently DYK-eligible and I think it uses the same numbering scheme.[1] HLHJ (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edit: add fulltext url]
I don't necessarily agree with the reading of WP:DYKCRIT 3b (Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source [...]) that says that the IP thing needs to be in the article (compare e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Urine deflector, which similarly took some creative licence in how the proposed hooks were phrased beyond what was stated in either the article or the cited source), and I agree with HLHJ that WP:IAR would be applicable regardless. As for the hooks themselves, writing "a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2" is a much poorer way of writing the hook (less "hooky") than the converse, i.e. "88.5.3.2 may refer to a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone". TompaDompa (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
We can't use IP address because the nominator just thought it up "oh, that looks like an IP address". It's not in the source as the nominator admits and therefore is not verifiable. And so what if it does look like an IP address? What does that tell us about broken toes? I like clever or quirky hooks and have written many (if I may say so), but they have to be based on something in the sources otherwise it's things made up one day. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all your comments. This is not the place to ignore all rules. The proposed hook is not supported by the source given in the article. I am inclined to approve ALT1 but it needs checking, unless another hook is proposed. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear, this has become contentious. I think the contended question is whether it's acceptable to have verified information not found in the nominated article, but only in another article, linked in the hook. Not as hooky, but for illustration:
I don't think we're debating whether the IP-address-hook statement is verifiable. The statement that "88.5.3.2" (and any number in that format) is a valid IPv4 address is supported by the IP address article and the IPv4 article, and this format is the subject of the Dot-decimal notation article. No-one had bothered to cite those statements in those articles, but since they've been challenged here, I've now cited them.Face-smile.svg So "88.5.3.2 is both an IP address[1] and a code for a broken toebone[2]" is certainly verifiable, and is now verified on Wikipedia. Any DYK reader should have no trouble verifying that the hook is accurate. Alternatives that do not mention IP addressees are not as hooky, but don't contain more information about broken toes:
*ALT4 ... that "88.5.3.2" is a toe fracture in the middle of the bone at the tip of the little toe, while a "78.5.3.2" is the parallel broken finger? Hallux proximal phalanx fracture in adults: an overlooked diagnosis, Meinberg, Eg; Agel, J; Roberts, Cs; Karam, Md; Kellam, Jf (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium—2018" (PDF). Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 32 (1): S1–S10. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063., pages 87 and 99 of PDF fulltext
*ALT5 ... that "88.5.3.2" is a broken toe, while a "78.5.3.2" is a broken finger? Hallux proximal phalanx fracture in adults: an overlooked diagnosis, Meinberg, Eg; Agel, J; Roberts, Cs; Karam, Md; Kellam, Jf (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium—2018" (PDF). Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 32 (1): S1–S10. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063., pages 87 and 99 of PDF fulltext
Rules aside, is there any concrete harm to Wikipedia in the IP-address hook? HLHJ (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edited to replace the wrong url, copy-paste mistake]
Please don't strike the proposed hook as you have done. You certainly don't have consensus to do that. As several people have explained above, the hook is supported by the article and the source. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the reviewer needs consensus Dr Vogel. I agree and have re-struck it. Please work on something else. I am sure you can develop something good, or tweak the Alt1. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
How about ALT2 ... that 88.5.3.2 is one way of describing a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Thank you Philafrenzy ( a very experienced DYK contributor) for your efforts in helping new editors understand DYK. Your comment higher up about "88.5.3.2" and "ip address" not being in the source is true and I am grateful for your suggested alts. Essentially, the initial and subsequent hooks sound good, but none are in the article or the source. I don't wish for personal comments and don't mind if someone else wishes to take over here. With due respect @DrVogel: and @HLHJ:...You may wish to take this up at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I won't say I wish I hadn't written the article;Face-confused.svg I hope it's useful enough to make up for the social harm to the project here. I don't think the hostility was intended by anyone; I suspect that it's felt partly due to the ease of mininterpretation in a text-only medium and partly due to human cognitive biases.[2] I certainly did, and do, not intend it.
I spent a day's editing trying to resolve the conflict by finding references specifically saying that the two things were in notation X and adding that text to the article, but unfortunately non-inductive descriptions of the notations seem to have been considered so needless that an Internet RFC attempting to formalize them died of disinterest. I did find a source that explicitly defines the IPv4 format, and one that explicitly says that 88.1.2.2 is a specific fracture, and I've cited the latter in the article, but I don't think this helps. It is probably a bit unreasonable to expect a reviewer to do more than apply rules as best they can, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know might indeed be a better forum for a more detailed discussion. I don't really want to take part in one, though (nothing to do with this discussion, prior reasons). I posted because I felt responsible for the conflict and thought I might be able to help. My impression is that I made it worse; my apologies to everyone I've offended. HLHJ (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is offended, but if I may say so I think you are still missing the point. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity. That's why the sources don't make the comparison and why the IP-based hooks are no good. Any of the other hooks might be fine (I haven't checked the numbers) just without the bit about IP addresses. The whole thing reminds me of unusually shaped vegetables where you may see a carrot shaped like a foot, people who see faces in clouds, and even apophenia. My personal observation that one thing looks a bit like another is not the basis for a hook unless reliable sources make the point too. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Folks, we are wasting a wonderful hook. Really. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity and that is the whole point of making good hooks. They are supposed to be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content. And one of the best recipes to make a hook good is to make it sound counterintuitive With any other option but the original, we are bound to receive another hook frequented by maybe a few hundred visitors. I would propose something to the tune of in some contexts, 88.5.3.2 might not mean an IP address but a broken bone in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? so that no one claims here that we somehow delegitimise the IP address but at the same time so that we preserve the core of the hook. As for the claims that because the hook is not cited in the IP part, it can't be there - please don't be that pedantic. In our today's world of informatics we may assume that people who visit Wikipedia more or less imagine what IP addresses are, and may more or less imagine how they look like (in the worst case they will visit the article for details). The other part is cited. I see no problem with the original. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki I admit that I'm not very familiar with the topic, and the above discussion was confusing, but is the "this isn't an IP address" claim actually in the source? Because if it's not, then no matter how good the hook proposal is, it can't be used in a hook since hook facts need to be based on a reference. Also, I'm pretty sure that assumptions don't count as sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
What I was leading is that we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, or that we have five fingers; or that there exist IP addresses for that matter. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that these IP number hooks aren't working out so far, I wonder if some other hooks unrelated to that could be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment only If we accept the first hook we will end up with thousands of hits, some quiet smiles and some who will continue to believe that DYK broke the rules. We're allowed to. This is not a massive occasion where we can save the whole project by breaking the rules. Its a trivial example of what some (not all) think may be a breach in the rules, with a small, but amusing, advantage. So I'm not asking the defenders of the rules to admit that this is not a breech ... I am suggesting that they might just concede that the harm done by allowing this hook might not offend anyone ... and it might please a few thousand. Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't need to break the rules. The observation that the notation looks a bit like an IP address is trivial and completely unrelated to broken toes. There are already perfectly good hooks above that work better. Nobody is saying don't use the numbers, just strike the bit about IP addresses. The originally proposed hook is not the work of comic genius and cleverness that some seem to think it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The main issue here is that it's one of the core rules of DYK that hook facts must be mentioned in the article, ideally explicitly or at least implied by supporting information. The thing is that at the moment, IP addresses are not mentioned anywhere in the article, so the hooks using the IP address angle would be ineligible according to that criterion anyway. Even April Fools hooks, which tend to be misleading, are still generally based on hook facts that are mentioned in the respective articles. So if we can't even grant IAR exemptions for that criterion for AFD hooks, the one day of the year where our hooks tend to follow the rules most loosely, I can't see why such a request should be granted here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @DrVogel: In the absence of consensus in favor of using the number angle, can hooks based on other facts be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to note that right now neither "88.5.3.2" nor "78.5.3.2" are mentioned in the respective articles (indeed, the only numeric codes mentioned in the articles are 88.1.2.2 and 78.1.1.1 respectively, so none of the currently proposed hooks are actually suitable given that the codes aren't mentioned at all in the articles (and they should be, per DYK rules). If revised hooks aren't proposed soon, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging previous nomination commenters @Whispyhistory, Philafrenzy, and HLHJ: for possible hook suggestions. The issue right now is even if we decided to IAR approve the IP addresses hook (which seems unlikely to happen given the articles make no mention of IP addresses at all), as mentioned above, the actual numeric codes used in the hook proposals aren't mentioned in the articles at all. Either the existing hooks need to be revised to use the mentioned codes, or hooks that use different angles (i.e. ones not about the codes) are proposed instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meinberg, EG; Agel, J; Roberts, CS; Karam, MD; Kellam, JF (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018" (PDF). Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 32 Suppl 1: S1–S170. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063. PMID 29256945.
  2. ^ Boothby, Erica J.; Cooney, Gus; Sandstrom, Gillian M.; Clark, Margaret S. (5 September 2018). "The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?" (PDF). Psychological Science. 29 (11): 1742–1756. doi:10.1177/0956797618783714. PMID 30183512. S2CID 52165115. Retrieved 8 June 2019.
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg.... clarified the clarify needed tag and added a bit more. I guess, someone else needs to review it now.
  • ALT6 ... that a phalanx may break following a hard blow to its tip? Whispyhistory (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it, I wonder if a hook about the numeric code system itself would work; to me at least, as a layman, it was surprising to know that, and I wouldn't be surprised if others would feel similarly. So perhaps:
  • They aren't the best hooks out there, but I was wondering if they're possible options at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 2[edit]

Downtown Eatery (1993) v. Ontario

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 17:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Drive-by comment. Isn't the holding of Downtown Eatery that the plaintiff was employed by a consortium of corporate entities including the named defendant? See Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd v Ontario, 2001 CanLII 8538 (Ont CA) at para 40: "we conclude that Alouche's employer in June 1993 when he was wrongfully dismissed was all of Twin Peaks, The Landing Strip, Downtown Eatery and Best Beaver". And Mohamed F Khimji & Jon Viner, "Oppression — Reducing Canadian Corporate Law to a Muddy Default", 2016 47-1 Ottawa Law Review 123, 2016 CanLIIDocs 87 at page 173: "… in Downtown Eatery, the applicant, Alouche, successfully obtained judgment for wrongful dismissal against his employer corporation, Best Beaver" (emphasis added in both cases). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @AleatoryPonderings: Yes, but note that this court case is the "leading case with respect to the issue of common employers", establishing a precedent in Canadian law. At the time the lawsuit was filed, this was not the case, and in fact the trial judge ruled against Alouche (see last paragraph of background section); it was only after the case was brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario that the "common employer doctrine" was established, and it became entrenched when leave to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed. Mindmatrix 15:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, so the idea behind the hook is that, since Downtown Eatery changed the law on common employers, before Downtown Eatery Best Beaver would not have been Alouche's employer? That makes more sense. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm going to inspect this again... Mindmatrix 15:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @AleatoryPonderings: Alright, so to ensure everything is correct, the following timeline occurred:
  • Alouche was hired to be manager at For Your Eyes Only (owned by Grad and Grosman), and began work on 29 December 1992
  • Alouche was sent a Notice of Discipline in May 1993, and was fired on 15 June 1993
  • In October 1993, Alouche filed action for wrongful dismissal against Best Beaver Management Inc., as that was the source of his paycheques
  • Best Beaver ceased operations in mid-1996, and all assets distributed to other companies owned by Grad and Grosman
  • The trial resolved in favour of Alouche
  • Best Beaver did not pay out the judgement (all its assets had been redistributed)
  • Sherriffs were dispatched to For Your Eyes Only, where they seized $1,855
  • Downtown Eatery filed claim against Alouche, stating the cash belonged to it
  • Alouche defended, and counterclaimed against Grad, Grosman, and all companies they controlled on the grounds of common employer doctrine, the oppression remedy of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and fraudulent conveyance
  • the judge in the second trial (at Ontario Superior Court of Justice) ruled against Alouche
  • the case was brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, where the previous ruling was overturned in 2001
  • in January 2002, an application for leave to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed
  • So, the common employer doctrine was part of the second trial as a counterclaim to the suit filed by Downtown Eatery. I just wanted to ensure this satisfies your concerns. Mindmatrix 18:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this incredibly thorough response. My concern is maybe philosophical or definitional. If I say that company A employs person B, that has an ordinary meaning and a legal meaning. It is probably right that Best Beaver did not employ Alouche in the ordinary sense of "employ", because Best Beaver was a "paymaster" and not the name on the front of the building where he went to work. My reading of the case itself is that, before Downtown Eatery, it was at best indeterminate as a legal matter whether Best Beaver, alone or in combination with its affiliate companies, employed Alouche. After Downtown Eatery, it was established—as a matter of legal meaning, but not necessarily ordinary meaning—that Best Beaver was his employer, or part of his employer, or something like that. The reason I brought this up is that it's not clear how one could verify the claim that "Best Beaver was not Alouche's employer", because that claim might be true as a matter of ordinary meaning but the only authoritative legal ruling we have on this (namely, Downtown Eatery) holds that the claim is false. In any event, I'll leave this to the eventual reviewer to sort out. I find my brain twisting into knots. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Clarifying that the above is only a side discussion and that a review is still required. Mindmatrix 20:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 3[edit]

Emily Goss

  • ... that Emily Goss's role as Jennifer in the film The House on Pine Street earned her four Best Actress award nominations, of which she won three, in the American festival circuit? source, source, source.
    • ALT1: ... that the character Louise, played by Emily Goss in the film Snapshots, is based on a real Louise, whom the writer-producer's mother was romantically involved with in the 1930s? Source: "The real Louise was a photographer. Our writer-producer Jan Miller Curran was with her mother when she was 94 and slowly passing and said, 'Louise is here.'... [Curran] said, 'Who is Louise?' And her mother said, 'The love of my life.' So then Jan learned the story of their secret relationship... in the 1930s." source

Created/expanded by Mungo Kitsch (talk). Self-nominated at 05:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Question?
  • Interesting: Red XN - see below
  • Other problems: Red XN - see below
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Hello, Mungo and welcome to DYK! Review as follows: The article is new enough, long enough and neutral. However, it includes a WP:IMDB source and I am unsure about the reliability of several other sources, including Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep. To add to that, the YouTube link does not appear to be uploaded by an official channel, making it unreliable. Additionally, per MOS:FILMCAST uncredited roles need a source. the copyvio checker showed up a 50%+ similarity with a source, which may suggest over quotation. On top of that, the subject has unclear notability. I'm unsure which roles are significant and The House on Pine Street appears to have a questionable notability. None of her awards seem significant and I'm not seeing any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ALT0 isn't very interesting given the festival is not significant enough to have an article. I think ALT1 is interesting but it seems to focus more on the character, not the actress which isn't exactly ideal... QPQ not needed. We'll need some work but we'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mungo Kitsch: Hello, will you still be able to address the concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis, thank you for your very constructive and enthusiastic feedback, and @Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your reminder; apologies for my delayed response. One thing I did soon after Pamzeis's feedback was abridge the quote in my second DYK, in hopes of curbing my overquoting. And I will intend on getting back to the Emily Goss article fairly soon, and further expanding and fortifying it in the pursuit of it passing the DYK nomination. If you look at my editing history, I've had ten straight days where I did not edit, one big reason being that I have family-related matters that needed attending to, such as Thanksgiving and another more somber matter. Anyways, let me get back to the Emily Goss article again, probably sometime this week. I will try to do some further rephrasing of the DYKs already here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis: Yes, I've got an update or two. I made this and other edits, which had the primary purpose of expanding on where The House on Pine Street premiered, and later to add some theatre to her repertoire. I am also going to see what type of information can be sourced from this podcast, which is another interview with Goss.
I am genuinely unsure, though, what to do to rephrase or spruce up this DYK. The DYK has my consent to be closed. I thought of this entry as a fun way to get exposure for the article I made, and my inexperience with DYK is apparent, as this is my first time being here after having made an article. I fully intend on expanding and refining the Emily Goss article, but to do so on my own time, without pertinent expectation from other parties and institutions. Feel free to add it to your watchlist, or drop in/contribute whenever. Thank you for your guidance. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 12[edit]

Maximilian Dood

  • Comment: This is the first time I’ve ever made a DYK here, so here goes. I personally find this fact interesting because it highlights how the advent of YouTube, and internet fame in general, has allowed people to use their voice to reach people in positions of high influence, bringing hidden ideas to light and advocating for change. While this specific example falls under a video game/pop-culture category, and may not fit Wikipedia’s desire for academic material, I feel that this is interesting enough to share, as it’s one the gaming community can relate to, like with other social media trends such as #FreeSmash and "Rerelease Mother 3." As for the article itself, all of the citations should be reliable enough; they’re all from third-party/secondary source outlets and there isn’t any BLP violation to be found here. One concern I have is criteria #3 - “Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient.” While the hook is sourced in the article, the refs are at the end of the section rather than per each sentence. I can fix that however. Anyway, I hope this fact does get accepted! If not, I understand, thanks for reviewing this anyway.

Created/expanded by PantheonRadiance (talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Hook is currently at 204 characters, so a minor reduction is required (maximum hook length is 200 characters)
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article is new and long enough. Earwig looks good and sourcing is good as well, and the hook is certainly interesting (and cited in the article), but is slightly too long. No QPQ is required as nominator does not yet have a DYK credit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging nominator PantheonRadiance as this has gone about a week and a half without a response. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Seems a shame to let this die for four characters. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Should I wait for the original nominator to get back to this or pass ALT1 immediately? (courtesy pinging @PantheonRadiance:) Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 13[edit]

Loess Plateau

Loess landscape near Hunyuan, Datong, Shanxi Province, China
Loess landscape near Hunyuan, Datong, Shanxi Province, China
  • ... that the loess in the Loess Plateau can come from over 1,250 km (780 mi) away? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1: ... that the loess in the Loess Plateau can travel over 1,250 km (780 mi)? as above

5x expanded by Christycheungkayan (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

  • This is just a comment but it may be a good idea to at least link to loess or somehow explain it since it's a technical term that most people probably don't know the meaning of. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Graeme Bartlett: Symbol possible vote.svg Hi there! Since we've gone from 4,706 characters of prose pre-expansion (in the week before nomination) to 18,572 presently, this article has only undergone a 3.95x expansion—to get to 5x expansion would require a total of 23,530 prose bytes, or 4,958 additional characters. Could this be done? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • The previous prose size was 3900 characters dated 2 August 2021. The date the page was moved would count as the expansion date, as history was merged from the sandbox on 13 Nov 2021, making the dates in the history a bit confusing. So that would mean the page should get to 19500 characters. It was that big when I nominated it. But since then some of the text was turned into a table. So I suppose I can de-table some text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Oh, I see, my mistake—interesting, I didn't see the histmerge. Yeah, you're much closer in that case—almost there! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 14[edit]

Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing

Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, very newsworthy event and hence well-sourced, no copyvios (Earwig reports a false positive on the Johnson quotation), QPQ done. However, without a source saying the taxi driver is comfortable to talk about his ear, I'm concerned the hook may not fit the spirit of "Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook." Could we go with something else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • He's a scouser. He'll fucking love it, they'll be feting him in the pubs and clubs of New Brighton as we speak. The point here is to get this lesser-known heroic guy the DYK, not focus on the scuzzball that started it, you know. I mean, something like Did you know that a bomb has just gone off outside a Liverpool hospital is so anodyne it defeats the object of DYK. People want to hear about this guy, not the perp or the police. By the way, as the philosopher Milton Jones once asked on a connected subject, "If an Earl gets an OBE, does he become an Earlobe?"  :) ——Serial 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How about ALT2 : ... that the taxi driver injured in the Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing was commended by the Mayor of Liverpool and the Prime Minister for his bravery? ("Prime Minister Boris Johnson has praised Mr Perry's actions. .... The city's mayor Joanne Anderson said the taxi driver's "heroic efforts" averted what could have been an "awful disaster" on Remembrance Sunday." [6]) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • He doesn't need Johnson's validation? And I refuse to be a party to getting that wanker on the front page more than he already has to be. What about him (the taxi driver) locking the bloke in the car before scaparing? (PS, I respect your views: all of them.) ——Serial 20:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that should work, if you can think of something hooky enough. (As for Johnson, if you can find enough good sources to write 1,500 prose-bytes about Ben Comeau we can do something with this on the main page). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • From a BLP perspective, I'd like to see us steer well clear of the Mayor's remarks (allegations?). They may be right, or wrong, and any heroic actions may be justified and deliberate or not, but these remarks are based on unconfirmed information and definitely serious enough for us to not flaunt them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think 'ear sewn back on' is well enough supported by the sources to lead with it, it's basically attributed to 'a man' on Facebook, in fact I'm not sure it should be in the article. Nor do I think even if it is verified, that this is anything like the most important part of the event. JeffUK (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Terrorist incident declared after bomb detonated outside Liverpool hospital". Independent. 15 November 2021.
  2. ^ "Liverpool Women's Hospital explosion: Man killed named as Emad Al Swealmeen". BBC News. 15 November 2021.
  3. ^ Mendick, Robert; Evans, Martin; Davies, Gareth (15 November 2021). "Liverpool bomber was of Middle Eastern background and not known to MI5 - latest updates". The Telegraph. (subscription required)
  4. ^ "Liverpool hospital taxi explosion: what we know so far". The Guardian. 15 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
  5. ^ "Threat level raised after Liverpool taxi bomb - follow updates live". Independent. 15 November 2021.
  6. ^ Dearden, Lizzie (15 November 2021). "Liverpool explosion: Police declare terrorist incident and say passenger 'built bomb detonated in taxi'". The Independent.

Machine learning in earth sciences

  • ... that machine learning can recognize rocks automatically? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1: ... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Moved to mainspace by TseKiChun (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is long enough and new enough. I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. A QPQ has been completed. The article is an orphan. The information about the images under "Below are highlights of some commonly applied algorithms." need to be referenced. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    Additional comment that the bolded link in the current hook is a bit of a MOS:EGG because without clicking, you would expect a link to Machine learning rather than Machine learning in earth sciences. DanCherek (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 15[edit]

Mama Lu's Dumpling House

  • ... that the two Mama Lu's Dumpling Houses on the same street in the same city are not affiliated with each other? Sources: "the Mama Lu's at 501 W. Garvey Ave. in Monterey Park, has no connection to the Lus or the charges against them" (Shatkin 2021). "There are Mama Lu's Dumpling House locations at 501 W Garvey Ave, Ste 101, Monterey Park...and at 153 E Garvey Ave, Monterey Park" (Loc 2017)

5x expanded by Rotideypoc41352 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Rotideypoc41352: I'm afraid this article doesn't yet meet the "newness" requirement. It was moved into mainspace on 28 December 2019, so it needs either to be promoted to Good Article or to meet the fivefold expansion requirements. I have used the DYKcheck tool to check this position and it currently has 2510 characters of prose. Seven days before the nomination, it had 886 characters of prose, and therefore would have needed 4430 characters of prose to meet the fivefold requirement.
Some additional comments:
  • The article is a bit confusing. Which restaurant is it about, or is it about both? The first sentence suggests it is about two restaurants ("are two independently-operated Chinese restaurants"), then the next couple of sentences, and the rest of the article, appear to only be about one of the restaurants ("As of 2018, it is very popular"). This probably would need to be clarified.
  • A QPQ would need adding, I think.
  • I haven't checked the sourcing for the article generally given the above, but the hook sourcing does appear to check out.
Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I had hoped to expand the article 5x by 29 November 2021, but that did not happen; I do not anticipate expanding the article by 5x in the next week. Hopefully, you can at least claim this review as a QPQ.
The article was originally written before the ownership structure of the two Mama Lu's (not counting restaurants with similar but different names) became clear. Now that there's official word that the two have operated independently since 2015, I'm not super sure on how to split the article—some post-2015 sources fail to specify which Mama Lu's they are discussing.
Regardless, that is a topic for the article talk proper. In the spirit of keeping the DYK nom queue manageable, I have done a QPQ. Thank you again for your review. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Ah, no worries, real life taking over often happens. :) I'll strike it in that case but all the best with improving it in the future (my suggestion FWIW would be to keep it as one article for both, if there's coverage of both, but just to explain the background a bit more and identify where the sources aren't clear?) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Bridle Trails State Park

The entrance of the state park
The entrance of the state park

5x expanded by Mccunicano (talk). Self-nominated at 00:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Newness requirement satisfied by 5x expansion on 11/15 from < 600 to > 3000 characters. Articles also long enough and compliant with core policies on citations and neutrality. The hook is in-line sourced. Photo has appropriate license. QPQ is done. There are, however, two problems:
(1) There is some significant overlap with this source. To start, the following sentence is taken from the source without use of quotation marks and with no effort to paraphrase rather than use the precise words: "Local advocacy led to the establishment of Bridle Trails as a state park in 1932." Further, this sentence also strikes me as too closely drawn from the same source: "Initial park development dates to 1933 when Civil Works Administration employees and federal relief workers were employed in state parks as part of the New Deal program. Further work included burning logging debris, clearing brush and building trails and fences." Work needs to be done to put the material into your own words.
(2) The hook strikes me as boring in that it states an obvious point. Horses having the right of way on this trail is not unique or special. On trails that are shared by humans and horses, it is the general rule that horses have the right of way. See here ("In general, horses always have the right of way, followed by hikers, then by bikers."). See also here ("For safety reasons, if you come across a horse and rider on any trail they always have right of way. Hikers and bike riders all yield to horses.") To include this on the main page, we really need something that is hooky or interesting about this trail. Cbl62 (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The nominator hasn't edited since the day of the nomination; what should be done here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cbl62: Fixed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, the issues have not been fixed, and this should not be advanced as is. Not sure how long we wait for the nominator. Cbl62 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
We could give this another week. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that at Bridle Trails State Park (pictured), one can ride horses in the middle of a densely populated urban area? Source: "As that [equestrian] lifestyle dwindled, and horse properties were turned into new neighborhoods, Bridle Trails remained one of the top spots in the region for riding. Its proximity to urban areas now makes it that much more unique." Cornwell 2019 (cited above)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Willing to assist with further issues until original nom returns or the nomination is closed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 16[edit]

West African mythology

5x expanded by Emmanuel okon269 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Gray, Louis H. (Louis Herbert); Moore, George Foot; MacCulloch, J. A. (John Arnott) (1916). The Mythology of all races ... Duke University Libraries. Boston, Marshall Jones Company.
  2. ^ Allardice, Pamela (1991). Myths, Gods & Fantasy. ABC-CLIO. p. 227. ISBN 978-0874366600.

Pero Pirker, 1964 Zagreb flood

  • Reviewed: Younousse Sèye & Chestnut-capped piha
  • Comment: I created the Pero Pirker article in my userspace in March[8] and merged it into the mainspace version earlier this week. Please also credit Tomobe03 for helping out with the Pero Pirker article.

5x expanded by Daß Wölf (talk). Self-nominated at 04:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 18[edit]

Isle of Skye: From Chieftain to King

Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 15:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This is more of a comment but a review, but the hook as currently written seems to be rather niche. Can other hooks be proposed here? I think a hook that also mentions the other awards could be promising, or maybe a hook about the connection to the island could work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg New enough when nominated, long enough, neutral, well-cited, QPQ done. A good introduction to the topic. ALT1 is a bit awkwardly phrased. What do you think of the following, or do you want to propose another?

While I'm fine with ALT1 or ALT2, I'm a bit worried about either falling afoul of the in-universe clause given this recent discussion at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I was unaware of that discussion, so thanks for pointing it out. I notice that several reviewers compare the game to Carcassonne, a classic game, but this is not mentioned in the article. Meeple reviewer complained the player shield should be wider. I am not seeing a hooky out-of-universe fact in the article, but maybe one or more could be added. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Added some stuff that could be hooky and permitted:

1501 Broadway

The Paramount Building at 1501 Broadway
The Paramount Building at 1501 Broadway

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

  • An impressive expansion by EpicGenius. I was intrigued by the ALT1 hook about Mussolini's eagle — animals always make things more lively. I remember when the King of Sweden was gifted some Lippizaner horses by the Sultan of Brunei... but I digress. Anyway, when I checked, I realized I had misunderstood; it wasn't an animal, it was a marble eagle. I guess hooks aren't supposed to draw people in by misleading them, so it ought surely to say "received a marble eagle from Mussolini". Not as cool, but more factual, and Mussolini is in himself a fine hook character. I'd support that hook. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: Whoops, that must've been a mistake on my part. I guess it might be more accurate, though slightly less hooky, to say that there was a marble eagle, so I've fixed it now. Thanks for reviewing the nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it was a general comment. I'm new here, and, while I originally intended to review, I was seriously put off by all the formalia. Bishonen | tålk 15:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC).
  • No problem. I will ask someone else to conduct a formal review in that case. Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This article does not have a full review yet. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay I've taken a look at the article and it meets all of the DYK requirements. A QPQ has also been done here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination against people with red hair

A Uyghur child with red hair
A Uyghur child with red hair
  • ... that referring to someone with red hair (pictured) as "a ginger" can be offensive?

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Interesting article! New enough, long enough, sourced, and AGF on the plagiarism-free because Earwig seems to be down. However, I have problems with the neutrality of the hook and article. The sourcing you provide doesn't seem to bear out the idea that "ginger" as a noun is seen as definitively or widely pejorative, as the article says. You cite the Irish Times, Al Jazeera, Psychology Today, and The Guardian. The Irish Times cites opposing viewpoints from people who don't think the term is offensive, suggesting a kind of "no consensus". Al Jazeera's work is an opinion piece, so it doesn't necessarily reflect the wider views of the red-haired community. Psychology Today does support the idea of the term being widely viewed as pejorative, but it does say "usually" and I don't necessarily view PT as the most rock-solid source, although it seems fine. I see no mention in The Guardian's article on whether or not the term is seen as pejorative.
Other neutrality issues:
  • The article says "children with red hair suffered a wave of assaults" in relation to "Kick a Ginger Day"—while that is horrid, the article it cites only mentions a handful of cases. A "wave" makes it seem like there was a dedicated assault from backwards bigots, and not a few teenagers being stupid.
  • The television program South Park has become known for promoting abuse against people with red hair. The fact that South Park humourizes or even trivializes violence against people with red hair does not equate to the show blatantly encouraging said violence, and i don't see the cited sources bearing that out either.
  • Mentioning the Halle Bailey/Ariel incident of the lead being criticized for ginger hair without putting it in the context that said criticism was itself criticized in The Guardian's opinion piece for being dogwhistle racism isn't a neutral point of view.
  • Stereotypes about red-haired people that aren't derogatory or discriminatory aren't within the scope of the article.
If the article and hook were both changed to "is perceived by some" to not put it in Wikipedia's voice, that'd be a pass, but I also think there's more interesting hooks to be had, if you're open to that—I've suggested an alt and I may suggest more—let me know what you think. Overall, this is a fascinating article, and I hope to see it run on DYK. Cheers, and don't forget a QPQ! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she?) 06:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Aighty, I gotta sleep—I'll finish this review in the morning. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she?) 09:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I think I've finished my review for now. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she?) 05:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Re'quan Boyette

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 04:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 19[edit]

Neural synchrony

  • ... that people's brains fall in neural synchrony with other brains during shared experiences? Source: Kinreich, Sivan; Djalovski, Amir; Kraus, Lior; Louzoun, Yoram; Feldman, Ruth (2017-12-06). "Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 17060

Created by BearGoldstein (talk). Self-nominated at 08:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @BearGoldstein: New and long enough, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ not needed. Many paragraphs do not have a citation at their end, so it's unclear what source these are cited by. The hook fact doesn't seem to apply generally, as the cited source says in its abstract, "neural synchrony was found for couples, but not for strangers". Thanks for doing such a thorough job on this article; I think it is actually close to Good Article status. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello Antony-22! Thank you very much for reviewing my DYK nomination and for your kind words about the article. I see what you're saying about the citations. My thought process was that the article's paragraphs, barring the intro, should have multiple citations that link to sources for the information used. I didn't create each individual paragraph around one single source, which is why I didn't always cite one source at the end of some of my paragraphs. Instead, many of my paragraphs are structured around a couple different sources, and I did my best to cite these sources appropriately throughout. I hope this is sufficient, but I am open to other perspectives, especially if they are more conducive to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though.
You also make a very good point about the citation for the DYK nomination. I was trying to make a hook that applied to the gist of my article as a whole, rather than one specific fact. Much of the research that supports the claim in the hook uses more specific examples (e.g., communication, coordination, or narrative processing paradigms) to conclude a connection between neural synchrony and shared experiences. Although it does not mention it explicitly in the abstract, the citation I decide to use explores shared subjective experiences, discussing "how natural social moments express in the brain as a shared experience of two interacting humans." Nevertheless, thanks to your comment I'm now realizing that I could have used a more concrete hook and a more precise citation, rather than using a hook that speaks broadly about the essence of my article as a whole. If I could tweak it at this stage, I would, but I am still really hoping for a DYK selection!
Once again, thank you for taking the time to review my article and nomination. I'm glad you think it is thorough and close to Good Article status. I am more than happy to take the necessary steps to upgrade the article, so if you (or anyone else out there) have any suggestions, then I would love to hear from you! BearGoldstein (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Shyam Sunder Jyani

Moved to mainspace by Jakhar Singh (talk) and Juxlos (talk). Nominated by Juxlos (talk) at 14:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Fabian Kelly

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 20[edit]

Tatyana Mezhentseva

  • Reviewed: None yet (this is my first DYK nomination)

Converted from a redirect by Kevinmacflyer (talk). Nominated by Jochem van Hees (talk) at 23:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comments by Tbhotch

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Kevinmacflyer and Jochem van Hees: A new article nominated on time, long enough. It is neutral and I couldn't read copy-pastes. The hook is sourced and interesting enough. QPQ not required. However, the phrase "which is the worst result for Russia to date" is not mentioned in the source and the singles section needs sources. I did a minor copy-edit and removed an image with unclear copyrights. Remember that pictures you find on the internet are mostly copyrighted. I also see that Junior Eurovision will be on 19 December, would you prefer it to run that date? (CC) Tbhotch 17:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 21[edit]

Tetracanthagyna plagiata

Illustration of a female T. plagiata
Illustration of a female T. plagiata
  • Reviewed: Siamés
  • Comment: Moved to mainspace on 21 November 2021. Note for those reading the first source that the first largest Odonate is a Zygopteran (damselfly), namely Megaloprepus coerulatus, putting T. plagiata as the largest Anisopteran (dragonfly). I would really like the image to be used by DYK and put at the first slot if possible! ALT0 is preferred. (bolded for emphasis heh) Thank you for your consideration!

Moved to mainspace by Artem.G (talk). Nominated by Ornithoptera (talk) at 07:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Ornithoptera: My apologies for the length of this review. Nominated for DYK five days after being moved to main namespace, and is over 8400, easily satisfying length and date criteria. I will assume good faith for the refs I cannot access (ref 5 - World Catalogue of Odonata; and ref 12 - The dragonflies (Odonata) of Singapore). In the distribution section, the first paragraph mentions T. plagiata is found in Thailand, and the end of the second paragraph states it "has been additionally recorded in Thailand", which seems redundant. The same can be said for the closing sentences of the "life history" and "habitat" sections. In the last paragraph in "Threats and conservation", "He additionally stated..." does not refer to the previously mentioned Y. Norma-Rashid, but D.H. Murphy, who was mentioned even earlier in the paragraph, so this needs tweaking to ensure the statement is properly attributed. The text states "...which were adapted for grasping prey...", but the source does not mention prey (it could be adapted for grasping a perch, for example). Although there's no copyvio per se, there does appear to be some similarity between text and source, such as these two examples:
  • [Article]: "...prementum was robust and had distal expansion with thin and hook like labial palps, serrated along the inner margins"
  • [Source]: "...prementum robust and expanded distally with labial palps thin and hook-like, serrate along their inner margins"
  • [Article]: "The stream itself was filled with organic matter such as leaf litter and fallen branches.
  • [Source]: "The stream was filled with debris such as leaf litter and fallen branches."
  • I realize that with such terse source, there can be some overlap of this sort, but there are quite a few instances in this article.
  • Please use page numbers for citations, for example with {{rp}}. Searching for details in refs, particularly the longer ones, is quite cumbersome without having some way to narrow the range of text to search. I spent far too much time doing this. You can also remove citations from the intro, as all that text summarizes the remaining article, all of which already has the necessary citations.
  • The image is an illustration of the subject that is suitable and clear at the size required for DYK. It has been freely licenced by the uploader. My only concern is that this is that user's only contribution to Commons, which piques my curiosity. Tineye reports no online copies of this image. The hooks are fine and sourced, though I'm curious if they should be qualified with 'females'; the article doesn't seem to mention if the males also exceed the size of other species. QPQ completed. Mindmatrix 02:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello @Mindmatrix:! Don't worry about the length of the review itself, all it shows me is that you put your time and care into it and that really does matter to me! I'll try to address your concerns in the review in itself, and if there continues to be issues please do inform me. I'll use your review as a guide for my editing. I have never used page numbers in my citations, and this is a fairly new thing for me to have come across, so I'll try and be vigilant next time. Forgive me though, just new to all of this, I haven't encountered it enough within my history editing Wikipedia articles. Regarding the image though, the illustration was made by one of my friends who offered to draw it for the article. Since they had no Wikipedia account, I requested that they make one, since I was uncertain of how to go about properly crediting them if I were to upload the image myself. Its a bit of a strange predicament, but I hope you understand! I'll try and address your concerns in the next few edits hopefully tonight so it can be up to snuff! Ornithoptera (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I can confirm Ornithoptera's statement that I created an account to add the image I created to the article. Ornithoptera being my friend, suggested that I provide art for Wikipedia articles with this article being the first. We found this the easiest way to add my art without having to worry about crediting me. Splendidsponges (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Splendidsponges: I will assume good faith that this is your own work. Thanks for creating and uploading it. Mindmatrix 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ornithoptera: I see that you have fixed the issues regarding duplication of Thailand, the attribution to Murphy, the issue about grasping, and the phrasing issue for the second example I noted above. In addition to the first example I noted (I'll write about this in a subsequent comment), there is still the duplication with the last sentences in the "life history" and "habitat" sections that still needs resolution. Mindmatrix 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello again @Mindmatrix:! Glad to see you again and thank you for your suggestions. I must have misread your earlier comments, and assumed that there was an issue with the phrasing of "primary and secondary forests" rather than the fact I erroneously duplicated the point within the article! I just rectified that and placed it in the "Habitat" section now. Thank you for your help! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey @Mindmatrix:, I did several of the suggested edits, however I am a bit uncertain about how to go forward with some of the suggestions and thus I am writing to get a clear idea of areas to address and to alleviate some of my confusions on what to do. The first example I really am struggling to word it in a way that would not be similar to the source, I am not familiar enough with larval Anisopteran anatomy and the related terminology to accurately provide an alternative description that would be both relevant and accurate. I am also uncertain due to the fact that the issue seems to be present within the article but rewording those two examples would probably not be enough to get it through, since I myself did not deliberately put those similarities in, and thus I'm not sure which areas would be of concern, so further clarity would be helpful? Another question I had was regarding if the suggestion for page numbers was for the future or to be implemented within the article for the issue to be properly addressed, with such a lengthy article it would be a bit of work for someone who has never properly utilized the feature before. I also wanted to state that I'm unsure why the aspect of adults' habitat is considered a redundancy, as motile adults can venture outside of their aquatic habitats and thus inhabit different areas. Regardless, I do appreciate the in-depth feedback, its a bit overwhelming in all honesty, but if there is a roadmap on what I should do next I would dearly appreciate that. A roadmap would mostly be helpful because there is a lot of concerns within the article that I don't exactly know how to tackle personally bit by bit, and knowing for sure what I need to do before it can be approved for DYK is a good idea. I understand that it is not your job but anything would be helpful because there is a lot to be addressed here, and hopefully it can be. Thank you so much for all your time and effort put into this! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ornithoptera: - this is just a quick note to say I haven't forgotten this review, and I'll probably get back to it later in the week or upcoming weekend. Mindmatrix 01:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Phew! That's a huge relief, I was mulling over whether to ping you again to ask if you were doing okay! I rectified the concern you had regarding the duplication by the way! Very glad to hear you haven't forgotten and I hope to hear from you soon! Ornithoptera (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1965–present)

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 21:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

Das jüngste Gericht

  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and RandomCanadian (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 19:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

  • I don't think this is ready for DYK. There's a lot of scholarship on this particular piece (to which I have access). I think it would be better if we waited. WP:NORUSH is a thing, and there's enough for me to expand this to something more reasonable once I'm not busy with end-of-term business IRL. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    Nomination couldn't wait another day - 7 days after creation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt: The alternative path to DYK, which I assume you know too, is to expand this at a later point (possibly all the way to GA). I'm quite confident a more expanded article would be a more attractive thing to present to the reader (and there would be plenty of more interesting hooks. Did you know that a recently discovered 1692 libretto of an actual Abendmusik bears similarities to Wacht! Euch zum Streit?[1][2]. Or that the Abendmusiken were actually presented right after Vespers?[3] Vespers, which themselves lasted two or three hours, in addition to a further three or four hour Hauptgottesdienst in the morning?[4][5] That might be one of the reasons why the audience was reported to be so disorderly, to the point that the town watch had to be hired to maintain a semblance of order.[6] That, and a lot more, which would surely allow to take this to DYK at a later time, after having greatly expanded this. Or at least, it's my opinion that taking the sole opportunity for DYK now would be a waste when it can be done when the article is expanded and made into something significantly more attractive and informative. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schabalina, Tatjana (2017), "Eine neue Textquelle zu einer unbekannten Abendmusik von Buxtehude aus dem Jahr 1692", in Matthias Schneider and Jürgen Heering (eds.), Buxtehude-Studien, vol. 2, Bonn, Dr. J. Butz Musikverlag, p. 81-108.
  2. ^ Scheitler, Irngard (2017), "Das Jüngste Gerichtim Lichte eines Librettos einer Buxtehude Abendmusik von 1692 und eines Königsberger Jüngsten Gerichts", in Matthias Schneider and Jürgen Heering (eds.), Buxtehude-Studien, vol. 2, Bonn, Dr. J. Butz Musikverlag, p. 185-189
  3. ^ Snyder, Kerala J. (2007), Dieterich Buxtehude: Organist in Lübeck, Rochester (NY), Rochester University Press, p. 54-55.
  4. ^ Cantagrel, Gilles (2006), Dietrich Buxtehude et la musique en Allemagne du Nord dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle, Paris, Fayard, p. 367-368
  5. ^ Heering, Jürgen (2017), "Gottesdienst und Liturgie in Lübeck zur Zeit Buxtehudes", in Matthias Schneider and Jürgen Heering (eds.), Buxtehude-Studien, vol. 2, Bonn, Dr. J. Butz Musikverlag, p. 11-27.
  6. ^ Ruetz, Caspar (1752), Widerlegte Vorurtheile von der Beschaffenheit der heutigen Kirchenmusic und von der Lebens-Art einiger Musicorum, Lübeck, Peter Böckmann, p. 44-49, cited and translated in Kerala J. Snyder, op. cit., p. 55-56.
Why don't you just go ahead and expand? This can't be approved without a qpq, - after nominating, there's time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Because I'm busy IRL (as you can deduce from the fact of my lesser than usual activity)? Fact is, I have the score and the whole text (including in translation) with me, in addition to lots of critical commentary on the piece itself (too much of which is focused on the question of authenticity, but alas...) and on the Abendmusiken in general. This can be used to make a proper article, but it would require time, which at the moment I really need to put into meeting an actual deadline than here. I've given you a list of pertinent sources (many of which are in German, if that's easier for you), if you're interested you know where to ask. On top of all of that, there's the question of article title (should it be at the current one or at Wacht! Euch zum Streit gefasset macht (a title which is used in a fair amount of sources, too...) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Short version of what I replied on my talk: The time for it is in Advent. This year or next, that is the question. I'm also busy with other things, and both your familiarity with the topic, and your better English, make me wish you did it. For DYK, just raising attention is the goal. If you want it GA, we probably better wait. You decide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The title: Wikipedia goes by the common title, and the other (and probably more) should be redirects. On this day today I wrote A Boy was Born, in 2023, and the discussion about how to write that title, as published or as Wikipedia rulez demand, still hurts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Binger

Created by Mikehawk10 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 22[edit]

Zapotitlán metro station

  • ... that the pictogram of Zapotitlán metro station depicts a sapote tree that is indented? Source: "The image represents a tree showing the sapotes in its three branches, and in the trunk some Tlantli teeth representing the "tlan" termination. The above, according to the Tribute Codex." (Mexico City Metro (in Spanish))

5x expanded by Tbhotch (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

  • General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Not particularly interesting as it is currently written. Perhaps emphasize the "teeth"?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Just the two issues above. SounderBruce 09:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @SounderBruce: The sources are listed below the paragraph in the hidden table. I deliberately exclude them to avoid adding the same two sources throughout the paragraph (example of how it used to look). Per Wikipedia:Inline citation#In-text attribution: "This is technically a valid inline citation for Wikipedia's purposes" as I already mentioned the sources ("According to the data provided by the authorities").
  • ALT1: ... that the pictogram of Zapotitlán metro station depicts a sapote tree that is indented as its etymology includes the word "Tlantli", which means "tooth" in Nahuatl? (CC) Tbhotch 19:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The old version looked fine to me, and has better verifiability than the current version. The ALT1 hook is really wordy and needs to be cut down. SounderBruce 05:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 23[edit]

Politics of the Philippines

Improved to Good Article status by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 16:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was promoted to GA status on time and meets DYK requirements. Close paraphrasing was not found and a QPQ has been provided. ALT0 is cited inline and verified; ALT1's source has a paywall so I am assuming good faith here. Article is technically good to go, but I'm withholding giving final approval for now, not because of any deficiencies, but because the article is indeed interesting and additional hooks could probably be proposed here (though both hooks are good: I have a slight preference for ALT1 myself). Also, while not a DYK issue, I'd suggest mentioning that the President/VP/Senators/Representatives/Justices all have to be natural-born citizens, since it's not currently mentioned in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hungerford police murders

Memorial cross to murdered PC Thomas Shorter
Memorial cross to murdered PC Thomas Shorter

Created by MIDI (talk). Self-nominated at 21:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

Monochromatic radiation

Created by Leomk0403 (talk) Jorge Stolfi (talk). Nominated by Leomk0403 (talk) at 04:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

  • I have no view on whether the article is ready or premature (whatever that mens). What I do have a view on is that it’s beyond stub class and I’ve therefore removed the stub tag. Schwede66 17:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm doubtful about the hook. Most of the "Practical monochromaticity" section is not supported in the cited source, but appears to be (well-meaning) original research. I'm not sure that a two-sentence entry in Oxford Reference is reliable without considering how other sources define or use the term, especially since "monochromatic" seems to customarily be used in a way that does not require a perfect single frequency. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 24[edit]

Moms for Liberty

5x expanded by Bishonen (talk) and X-Editor (talk). Nominated by Bishonen (talk) at 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg —valereee (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm a little concerned about the descriptions of the group being based on those by left-leaning groups like MMfA. We may need to tone down some of this language. —valereee (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg —valereee (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 25[edit]

Barton, Kinder and Alderson

  • ... that the only stained glass exported to the United States by Barton, Kinder and Alderson was assessed an import duty because it was priced too low to be classified as artwork? Source: Ref 6 "These windows were custom-made and are the only known examples of the firm’s work in this country" for the first part of the hook; Ref 9, the US Senate Judiciary Committee report, too long to summarize here, but the import duty part is based on that source.

Created by MB (talk). Self-nominated at 04:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, and adequately sourced. (A duplicate footnote could be re-used rather than repeated, but that's not an issue for DYK.) QPQ done. Earwig found no copying. However, "too low to be classified as artwork" from the hook is not clearly stated in the article. Instead, the article states that the tariff was waived for things that had a combination of three requirements: (1) high value, (2) artwork, (3) destined for a church. It goes on to state that because of not meeting requirement (1), the tariff was not waived. It does not state that failing (1) was assumed to imply also failing (2). So either we need a clear statement that the low value made it a non-artwork, from a source that clearly supports that implication, or we need a better hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The article says "imported stained glass considered artwork for use in churches, and valued at over $15/sq ft, was duty-free under the Tariff Act of 1930". The source says "stained or painted window glass (or entire windows) which are works of art, when imported to be used in a house of worship valued at $15 or more per square foot, are free of customs duties..." I think the article accurately paraphrases the source. I don't agree with your parsing of this into three requirements. What is artwork is highly subjective and therefore a government tariff cannot possibly be written with such vague language. It gives two objective criterion - (1) destined for a church and (2) high value (which makes it artwork, otherwise it would be construction materials).
When the source discusses why a tariff was assessed, it expresses it in terms of which objective criterion it did not meet (value). The hook merely states it from the perspective of not being artwork. The hook would be quite boring if it said "because it was priced under $15/sq ft. I don't see a problem here. MB 04:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see a problem with the article. The problem is with the hook. The article says "considered artwork", "for use in churches", AND over $15. Your quotation of the source indicates that the article is accurate. Your hook suggests that the artistic value of a work is measured by its price, and that cheap works cannot be artistic. I don't see this implication anywhere in the source or in the article. Both of them suggest instead to me that, although it may be possible for cheap works to be artistic, they cannot have their tariff waived because they are cheap. Similarly, I think it would be reasonable to understand the source as meaning that if a church imports an expensive chunk of stained glass that has not been crafted into stained glass art (maybe for instance bulk glass sheets of some expensive type), then even though it is expensive it could not have the tariff waived because it is not art. As for your final comment, "The hook would be quite boring if": interestingness is important, but not a valid rationale for incorrectness. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilingirl

  • ... that Bilingirl ran a nail salon before she started posting on YouTube? Source: JungleCity (article) 2010年から2年間、銀座にてネイルサロンを経営。[Since 2010, she ran a nail salon in Ginza for two years.]
    • ALT1: ... that YouTuber Bilingirl went to the same Japanese school with actor Kei Hosogai? Source: Kei Hosogai's Twitter (link): "最近びっくりした事。人気ユーチューバーで、CMにも出たりしているバイリンガール…なんと俺のシアトル時代の同級生笑 週に一回の日本人学校で小学生から高校生までずっと同じ笑 覚えてるかなー?笑 なんか…めちゃ不思議や笑笑" [Something surprising happened recently. Bilingirl, a popular YouTuber, appeared in a commercial. She was my classmate when I lived in Seattle (lol). She's always been the same since we attended Japanese school once a week from elementary to high school (lol). I wonder if she remembers me? (lol) Somehow... this is very weird (lolol).]; Bilingirl's Twitter (link): わお、ここでも!w 本当に不思議過ぎるんだけど! [Wow, you're here too! (lol) But, really, this is too weird!]

Created by Lullabying (talk). Self-nominated at 01:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

  • .

Nathaniel Akinremi Fadipe

  • ... that the 1939 doctoral thesis of anti-colonial activist Nathaniel Akinremi Fadipe, now considered a well-respected resource on Yoruba culture, was not published until 1970?

Created by AFreshStart (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @AFreshStart: 4th DYK, no QPQ needed. Article is long enough and the sourcing is a bit bare, but just about passes WP:NBIO - could definitely go with 1-2 other sources if you can find them though. Hook fact is cited, and interesting, but I have serious concerns about plagiarism. The hook (and several other sentences in the article) seems copy-pasted from the Dictionary of African Biography source. I cannot accept the hook until the entire article has been fixed to not violate copyright. Juxlos (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have found a few other sources (e.g. [11], [12]) which I or another editor can add after the copyright issue is resolved (my apologies). —AFreshStart (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 26[edit]

1970 Westminster Titans football team, 1976 Westminster Titans football team, 1977 Westminster Titans football team, 1988 Westminster Titans football team, 1989 Westminster Titans football team, 1994 Westminster Titans football team

  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

Global arrogance

Created by Ghazaalch (talk). Self-nominated at 09:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Ghazaalch: Hi there! Let's start with the good news: article is new enough and long enough, as well as adequately sourced, and a QPQ isn't needed. That's... unfortunately, all I've got visa-v good news. First, the article could use a small copyedit—mostly to deal with the contractions. Second, the quote in paragraph 3 of the Arguments section (and its associated blockquote) is pretty much presented without context—instead of being used sparsely and put in context the way other quotes in this article are. Third, and probably most importantly, the fact that a massive portion of this article is a line-up of people accusing the U.S. of global arrogance with barely any pushback seems to constitute an NPOV violation—I'm not quite sure that the consensus of reliable sources is the agreement that the U.S. is globally arrogant. Also, when we say the u.s. has been accused by *list of ethincities*, do we mean their governments or just random people/academics from those countries (I can't access the source)? Because if it's the second, then... yeah, I think the U.S. has been accused of war crimes by people in all of those countries—global arrogance can take a number in regards to U.S. transgressions abroad. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 20:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at the source it doesn't seem to be saying governments, so its probably closer to the second. Are you saying that if its the second, then it is not 'hooky' enough?
The "Arguments" section does include some contrarian views (eg "the perception of the Western world exhibiting "global arrogance" is form of Occidentalism"). I also spent about half an hour searching for pushback but couldn't find much more pushback. These kinds of articles don't always have pushback. For example, there's no pushback at Great Satan. Nor is there any strong pushback recorded at Bomb Iran or Axis of evil.VR talk 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Theleekycauldron. Could you take another look at the article an see if the first two issues you mentioned are resolved? About the third one Vice regent has already explained, but I should add that while writing this article I searched for "global arrogant", because this article is about the term. Off course many other writers do not think that US is arrogant, and so they don't use the term. But since this article is about the term, I should have listed the people who use it (first section), and the reason why they use it (second section).Ghazaalch (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm rather uncomfortable with this article too, the topic looks a bit ropey and the content is correspondingly lacking in focus. But certainly, I don't think that hook should be run. It's sourced solely to an opinion piece by Thomas Friedman, which in the original source reads: The Iranians aren't the only ones talking about America as "the capital of global arrogance". The French, Germans, Japanese, Indonesians, Indians and Russians also call us that now.

While that can certainly be read to mean that all those countries have literally used that term, it seems doubtful to me that all these countries would be adopting a slogan that evidently originated from Iran. IMO when Friedman said all these other countries "call us that now", he may simply have meant they describe the US as "arrogant". Regardless, it seems to me that the sourcing is just too thin to be used as the basis for a DYK hook. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on November 27[edit]

Canon Computer Systems

Moved to mainspace by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC).

Lübeck disaster

Created/expanded by AFreshStart (talk). Self-nominated at 12:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter)

  • ... that trainspotter Francis Bourgeois is currently studying engineering at the University of Nottingham? Source: "A 20-year-old engineering student at the University of Nottingham, his TikTok account has nothing to do with a doped-up Ewan McGregor wreaking havoc with his mates, or Victoria Paris posting a video of her new I.AM.GIA ​‘fit." [13]
    • ALT1: ... that when trainspotter Francis Bourgeois began secondary school, he hid his love for trains in order to fit in with his peers? Source: "He moved to Frome in rural Somerset aged 7, and after starting secondary school, Bourgeois felt compelled to suppress his interest in trains in order to fit in." [14]
    • ALT2: ... that when trainspotter Francis Bourgeois was younger, he used to go to the Willesden Junction station and then go home and draw the trains he saw from memory? Source: "Where did his fascination with trains come from? It all stemmed from his childhood in Willesden Junction in London – one of the busiest train junctions in all of London. “All of these trains moving through at once sort of really fascinated me,” he admitted, later adding that he would try to draw pictures of the trains he saw from memory." [15]
    • ALT3: ... that trainspotter Francis Bourgeois states that people have started to recognize him in real life from his videos on TikTok? Source: "He was walking past a Nottingham pub a few weeks later when he heard his name being called. “I saw a group of lads all stood up and waving at me. At that point I realised that people were recognising me in the street because they had seen my videos, which is pretty bonkers.”" [16] (archive due to paywall)
    • ALT4: ... that trainspotter Francis Bourgeois states that attending university has allowed his passions to flourish? Source: "“I didn’t really know what people would think,” he says, thoughtfully. ​“Coming to university, I’ve turned a new page and allowed my passions to [flourish] and not be held down. It’s made me a lot happier.”" [17]
  • Comment: This is my first DYK and second article, so comments and improvements are appreciated. Thanks!

Created by Wizzito (talk). Self-nominated at 14:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment: I have a few suggestions for possibly more interesting hooks:
  • ALT5: ... that Francis Bourgeois is pursuing full-time trainspotting? Source: The Face
  • This would have to be incorporated into the article, but the same The Face article says "Usually dressed in vintage train gear – an overcoat from the ​’50s, an old driver’s watch secured on eBay and a WW2 inspector’s hat, to name a few of his signature pieces", which sounds interesting to me. Any way to incorporate that?
Regards, eviolite (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I recommend scrapping ALT0 and ALT4, to reduce the number of possible hooks. I find those two to be the weakest of the bunch. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 28[edit]

Single All the Way

  • ... that Dan Finnerty was cast in Single All the Way so that he could cross the Canada–U.S. border and join his wife, Kathy Najimy, on the set of the film? Source: "Najimy [...] wanted her husband Dan to join in her Canada for filming. COVID restrictions made crossing the border impossible for anyone not working, so they cast him in the film as Kevin." [18]

Created by DanCherek (talk). Self-nominated at 23:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is long enough, new enough, and sourced enough. Plot sections don't need to be sourced, and don't count towards the character minimum, but this article has no problem clearing 1500 without the plot section. The hook is interesting enough, but if you can tie it to The Dan Band somehow that would probably draw more clicks. I don't know if his songs in this movie were anything like Old School and Hangover. QPQ is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Muboshgu, I've added a QPQ above. How's this:
    DanCherek (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is Princess?

Created by Lullabying (talk). Self-nominated at 19:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

Teodor Boldur-Lățescu

Boldur-Lățescu
Boldur-Lățescu
Boldur-Lățescu recovering from his wounds
Boldur-Lățescu recovering from his wounds
    • ALT1: ... that Moldavian rebel Teodor Boldur-Lățescu (pictured) was twice beaten up on circus grounds–once for insulting Wallachian officers of the Romanian Army, and a second time for cruelty to animals? Source: The first incident is detailed in Bogdan, pp. 103, 105–108, 114–115; the second one in Șuțu, pp. 451–452.

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC).

Platycephalus endrachtensis

Created by Leomk0403 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC).

C. N. Barclay

  • ... that British Army brigadier Cyril Barclay was neither a polygamist, nor an anarchist who wished to overthrow the United States government?

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 22:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg This is a nicely presented and well structured article that is new enough and long enough. I'm taking the citations in good faith, but the hook needs to be cited above, including the actual wording in the source, and of course the QPQ needs to be done. Downstream it would be nice to expand it with more detail of his war service and a photograph, but that's not needed for the DYK. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I agree with your suggestions for expansion, unfortunately both items are lacking in the sources at present. I believe giving the source of the hook in the nomination remains optional. It is easily found in the article. I will ping you when I have more. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Bermicourt:... QPQ added Whispyhistory (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: I think I have done what I can with the (reliable) sources available to me. Please conclude your review. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't access the source for the hook. What I do in cases where my source is offline or 'hidden' behind a login requirement online, is to cite the actual text from the source after the hook in the DYK nom above, along with the source details themselves. If you can do that, I'm sure this can be signed off. Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no need, you can just tick it with the AGF symbol if you are otherwise satisfied with it. That's the correct procedure in such cases. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That the subject made standard immigration declarations on a ship manifest is not particularly novel for DYK purposes. (Also FamilySearch is not a reliable source on its own.) Something related to his military or writing career would be more appropriate. (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 03:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a scan by the National Archives and Records Administration and therefore is a reliable source. It is merely hosted by Family Search. I also believe that although a standard declaration, it makes a good and novel hook in the "quirky" last slot. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Space Oddity

Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC).

  • @Zmbro: ALT1 should say first music video recorded in space rather than first video. ––FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 14:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


Antonio Valero de Bernabé

Antonio Valero de Bernabé
Antonio Valero de Bernabé

Source: "Valero de Bernabé was a ventriloquist. Palma wrote about this skill in El Fraile y la Monja del Callao and Un ventrílocuo. In the first, the author narrates an incident where Valero de Bernabé was surrounded in an alley while returning to Bellavista, concealing himself and used his skill to project revolutionary cries as if they were coming from the rifles of the royalist, who were shocked and dropped the weapons before running away to his amusement." (Source)

Expanded by Caribbean H.Q. (talk). Self-nominated at 00:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Darmawan Mangunkusumo

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

Tokio (software)

  • Reviewed: n/a, less than 5 credits
  • Comment: I did my last DYK nom 9 years ago, let me know if I missed anything or can improve. Thanks!

Created by Legoktm (talk). Self-nominated at 11:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

Dumping in Dixie

Created by Raj3015 (talk). Nominated by Eviolite (talk) at 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 29[edit]

Harpya

  • ... that Raoul Servais invented a new technique for combining animation and live action for his short film Harpya? Source: "...I wanted to try out something new, something that lay between animation and live action. ... So I had to develop a technique of my own that would allow me to combine the two film techniques." Raoul Servais: The Wizard of Ostend
    • ALT1: ... that critics have discussed whether or not the short film Harpya is misogynist? Source: "The film is little shocking but it would be a mistake to read it as misogynist." Animation: A World History, "Ça l'ennuie quand on dit que c'est un film misogyne." [It annoys him when one says it's a misogynist film.] Cinergie, "On the face of it, the film is a misogynist fable... And yet Harpya doesn't seem that offensive." Notebook

Improved to Good Article status by Ffranc (talk). Self-nominated at 14:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

Dharwar Craton

  • Reviewed: Luidia maculata
  • Comment: part of Educational Assignment for Regional Geology at University of Hong Kong

5x expanded by Skhlaw (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 22:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC).

Bobbi Kristina Brown

Improved to Good Article status by Kbabej (talk). Self-nominated at 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg she didn't really die in similar circumstances to her mother, did she? She died 6 months after being placed in a medically induced coma. Her mother died (according to our article) from drowning in a bathtub. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Whitney died from being submerged in the bathtub, while Bobbi died from effects of the coma from being submerged in a bathtub. --Kbabej (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Scotland

Created by Eentelijent (talk). Self-nominated at 05:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg No expansion or the like, and the user has not contributed significantly to the article. Juxlos (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 30[edit]

Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad

  • ... that the Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad was "just as wide" as the New York Central? Source: Last paragraph in article: 'W.H. Fullerton, a director of the H&W,[26]: 46  contacted a counterpart at the New York Central Railroad to propose that they exchange free-travel passes on one another’s railroads. Facing a rebuttal, he allowed that the Hardwick & Woodbury might not be as long as the mighty New York Central but, he maintained, it was “just as wide.”[40]' Citing: Herald and News from Randolph, Vermont, February 13, 1902, p. 5.

Created by Piledhigheranddeeper (talk). Self-nominated at 12:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC).

Kekhashru Mistry

Kekhashru Mistry (1911)
Kekhashru Mistry (1911)

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 22:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

Harry Tombs

5x expanded by Therapyisgood (talk). Self-nominated at 18:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was nominated within the past 7 days of expansion. Original word count for prose before expansion was 255 while current word count is 2,150 and passes qualification. Article has over 1,500 words in prose. Article is worded neutrally. Earwig turned up with no copyright violations. Citation is a concern, as there are only 2 sources used for this article, with the first cited 4 times and the second source cited once. QPQ is done and hook is interesting. lullabying (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lullabying: what exactly is the issue? There's really only the one source, completeness isn't a requirement for DYK. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • With so little sources, I'm not sure if it establishes notability. lullabying (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that more sources would be good, particularly since this is based on something that's already a tertiary source (and sometimes seems to veer a bit close to that source). There's some decent info in this article, if you have JStor access, and a lot more in this doctoral dissertation. As another note, the hook doesn't quite make sense: it should be "founded the first fine arts press in New Zealand" or "was the first to publish fine art books in New Zealand" or something, but one doesn't publish a press--a press publishes. blameless 00:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Added the journal source. Changed wording in article. Changed wording in hook. How about:

Mike Gapes

British MP Michael John Gapes. Baileys not included.
British MP Michael John Gapes. Baileys not included.

Improved to Good Article status by AFreshStart (talk). Self-nominated at 18:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
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: Symbol question.svg Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Hi AFreshStart. I don't see that the article states that he "became a source of left-wing mockery" because of the Baileys speech, nor that it "went viral". Could you either tweak the article - assuming the sources support this - or tweak the hook? (Eg 'that British MP Mike Gapes' (pictured) pro-Brexit explanation of how Baileys is made was described as being "infinitely memeable" and giving him "bizarre online infamy"' or similar.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The hook is true, but you're right; it isn't fully supported by the source. I'd definitely support your tweaked hook wording as an alternative, thank you! 🙂 —AFreshStart (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OK. I have tweaked it a bit and listed it as ALT1, and tweaked the article to explicitly match it. I believe that having become so involved in producing the hook I now need to step back and allow another editor to review it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg

  • Comment: please remember that hooks must be accurate, neutral, and not unduly focused on negative aspects of living people. DYK is not the place to mock, tease, or shame living people, even if reliable sources have done so. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

2022 Challenge Cup

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

  • No, a question. The citation says "Newly promoted French club Toulouse Olympique will not enter, following on from recent form in which they have not taken up an invitation to enter". I read the piece through a couple of times to understand what that means in addition to 'a club declined an invitation'. ~ cygnis insignis 14:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Haematomma ochroleucum

Created by 180.54.70.114. Nominated by Leomk0403 (talk) at 03:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but isn't this fairly common for moss in general? Juxlos (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Going to jump in here and let you know that H. ochroleucum is in fact a lichen! You learn something new every day! Ornithoptera (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Sources not supplied. Hook is bland.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Firstly, the hook is indeed cited inline in the article ( particularly those that are north-facing., cited to Armstrong), so saying that "sources not supplied" is not the case here. I would agree that the current hook isn't that great if it's the case that most moss grow on north-facing rocks, but a bad hook isn't a reason to fail a nomination unless there really isn't anything else usable as hook facts. @Georgejdorner: Moving forward, I would highly suggest that you avoid quick-failing DYK nominations if any issues are still surmountable, especially if reviews are as incomplete as this: if you want to fail a nomination immediately, I would suggest at least checking first all criteria, rather than just saying that "it lacks sources" and that the hook is "bland". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
With that said, looking at the article right now, I'm drawing a blank as to possible hook angles apart from maybe the "blood eye" nomenclature (although that refers to the genus as a whole rather than just this species); perhaps Cwmhiraeth could help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: It's a nice, well-written article. What about
  • ALT1 ... that in Europe, Haematomma ochroleucum commonly grows on rocks facing north, while in North America it occurs primarily in waterfall spray zones? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, that is a much better hook. I'd just like to hear Leomk0403's thoughts on it first before proceeding. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sangatsu no Phantasia

  • ... that some of Sangatsu no Phantasia's songs were based on novels written by its vocalist Mia? Source: [22], [23]
    • ALT1: ... that Mia, the vocalist of the anime music unit Sangatsu no Phantasia, is also a published novelist? Source: Same sources as ALT0, [24]; note that the Gentosha link is currently not in the article, but can be added if needed.

Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 1[edit]

Kirsten Warner

  • ... that Kirsten Warner, whose father was a Holocaust survivor, wrote a novel from the perspective of the child of a Holocaust survivor? Source: "Warner deftly juxtaposes [character] Christel's day-to-day life with her troubled teenage years as the only child of a Holocaust survivor ... [Warner's] father, Gunter Warner, who passed away last year age 95, was a refugee from Nazi Germany and a Holocaust survivor." [25]

Created by Chocmilk03 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC).

Central America Volcanic Arc

  • ... that the Central America Volcanic Arc was formed due to the interaction of several tectonic plates in the region over millions of years? Source: MacMillan, I., Gans, P. and Alvarado, G., 2004. Middle Miocene to present plate tectonic history of the southern Central American Volcanic Arc. Tectonophysics, 392(1-4), pp.325-348.

5x expanded by Thought22Potato (talk). Self-nominated at 00:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC).

Democratic Society Party closure case

Created by Paradise Chronicle (talk). Self-nominated at 09:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC).


Nandivada Rathnasree

Part of India's stone built observatories
Part of India's stone built observatories

Created by Naushervan (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 15:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC).

Three utilities problem

Diagram of the three utilities problem

Improved to Good Article status by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 23:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment: you'd think I'd have learned my lesson from that time I got absolutely and deservedly smacked for proposing a bad ALT on a math nom, but I think this one could improved; I've proposed an ALT0a that has minor changes and suggested that the image in infobox be used if this hook is ran as a lead (the white background would stand out on the blue highlight of the Main Page). We don't get enough diagrams and puzzles on Did you know, and I think this one would be fun and interesting for readers to try to work out—some will try to work it out, even though they know it's impossible. In fact, I think it'd get more attention if we didn't say that it was impossible upfront, but that's a different ALT. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 03:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • ALT0a looks ok to me, a little less awkwardly worded. We don't generally allow contractions like "it's" in article space, but I guess it's ok in DYK. I took the liberty of adding "(pictured)" to the hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Version showing lines on a plane
  • Comment: I prefer ALT0a but with "it's" and "it is" made consistent. If, however, it's decided to remove mention of the torus and Möbius strip, I think this version with lines, one pair crossing, is better. Disclaimer: I drew both diagrams (and their brethren). Cheers, cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 02:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I recall seeing this problem in a recent YouTube video; glad it has a GA! I like the hook, but I feel it's trying to squeeze in a little more than it needs to, so my suggestion would be to just go with the simple:

ALT1: ... that it is impossible to draw non-crossing lines from three houses to three utilities (pictured) in a plane?

I think that'll draw readers in, and they can then read about the torus/Mobius/etc. in the article.

For the other review components, everything looks good here, with some elements already covered at GAN. Slightly debatable where there's an inline citation for the hook fact right after it appears in the article, but I think it's fine. Picture is freely licensed own work from Cmglee (heads up that you're Main Page-bound!); we could also go with one of the alternate versions but I like how this one is clean and simple. Hook fact is interesting for either ALT0a or ALT1, and I think it's able to state the problem both completely and concisely (not always an easy task). Just let me know your thoughts on ALT1 vs. ALT0a and this will be good to go. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 08:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 UK Championship

Created by Lee Vilenski (talk) and HurricaneHiggins (talk). Nominated by Lee Vilenski (talk) at 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC).


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: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg @Lee Vilenski: Great work as always. This nomination just needs a QPQ before it can be approved. Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'd add "snooker player" in front of Mark Williams, to set the context of the hook as a snooker tournament theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 21:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 2[edit]

Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine

  • ... that Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine was the first major English book to provide an accessible account of the Great Chinese Famine? Source: “For many people outside China, the truth about the famine did not begin to emerge until the 1990s. Jasper Becker…in 1996 published his book, Hungry Ghosts: China’s Secret Famine. This became the first major book in English that provided a comprehensive accessible account of China’s man-made catastrophe.” [26]

5x expanded by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk). Self-nominated at 08:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC).

Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll

  • ... that Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll scored his first victory during what has been called history's first strategic bombing raid? Source: O'Connor, Martin (1994). Air Aces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 1914 - 1918. Flying Machines Press. ISBN 0-9637110-1-6, ISBN 978-0-9637110-1-4, pp. 217, 329. "On 14 February 1916, Szepessy-Sokoll participated in what could be called the first strategic bombing mission in history....one Italian Caudron two-seater was downed by the combined fire of three of the Austro-Hungarian aircraft, Szepessy-Sokoll's included." (p. 217) Victory list on (p. 329) confirms it was his first victory.
Macchi L.3
Macchi L.3
  • ALT1: ... that Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll shot down a pair of Macchi L.3 seaplanes (pictured) to become a flying ace? Source: As above, O'Connor. (p. 218) "On November 15, 1917, Szepessy-Sokoll became an ace." Victory list on (p. 329) confirms that the victims were Macchi L.3 seaplanes.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 07:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

Kisrawan, Kisrawan campaigns (1292–1305)

Moved to mainspace by Al Ameer son (talk). Self-nominated at 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Al Ameer son: Interesting articles about how a region came to be. Hook interesting for sure, and the GA is indeed a well-written and well-sourced article. An entire section in Kisrawan is uncited but I assume it's due to the section prose being effectively just summarizing the campaign article. Both ALT0 and ALT1 are interesting, but I think ALT1 is more fitting for readers who may not be aware that Lebanon has a significant Maronite Christian presence. No significant copyvio by Earwig. You are missing the QPQs with your 208 DYKs though, so ping me when that's done and we can pass the hook(s). Juxlos (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Juxlos: Thanks for the review, both QPQs now added. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Carowinds

  • ... that Carowinds amusement park in Charlotte, North Carolina, was the first amusement park to sell Dippin' Dots ice cream? Source: Dippin' Dots ice cream page

Converted from a redirect by InternetScavenger89 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator has been blocked indefinitely, and in fact has not made a single edit to the nominated article (which isn't a problem per se, but in this case the nominator claimed to have converted the article from a redirect, which is demonstrably false). Additionally, Earwig's tool turned out a whopping 90.5% similarity with https://en.advisor.travel/poi/Carowinds-16188, although I don't know whether that site copied from Wikipedia or vice-versa. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 04:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dylan620: That website has the following notice: All textual information is provided under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike. The licenses for media files are to be specified in each case separately. Even if the Wikipedia article copied from that page, it is not a violation since CC-BY-SA is compatible with Wikipedia, and attribution could be provided on the page. However, I am pretty sure it was the other way around. (Incidentally, this is a longstanding article that has been around since at least 2007, so deletion should not have been requested. I will request a refund shortly.) Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Epicgenius: Aye, and I am deeply embarrassed to admit that I didn't realize that about the page's licensing until after the article had already been deleted. I didn't request deletion, though; in fact, I was one of the first to rebuke the deleting admin on his talk page. Even right away I wanted to leave wiggle room for the prospect that the site in question had copied from Wikipedia; deletion hadn't even occurred yet by the time a gut feeling had sunk in that such was the case. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 02:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Dylan620, no worries. I don't blame you for the deletion, just thought it was strange that it was deleted so drastically. Your reason for rejecting the article is most likely correct though; as a page watcher, I don't recall this being improved to GA or 5x expanded recently. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Epicgenius: Indeed it hadn't; I ran a DYKcheck on the article shortly before my review, which confirmed that 5x expansion had not occurred. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 02:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Friends (Japanese band)

  • ... that the name of the Japanese band Friends was inspired by the name of a pub? Source: [27] ("おかもと「いえ。それは、私が散歩しながら“バンド名は何がいいかなぁ”って考えてた時に、パッと見上げたら『フィリピンパブ フレンズ』って看板が目に入って、“これだ!”と思ってすぐにLINEで写真を送って」")
    • ALT1: ... that the leader of the Japanese band Friends was chosen via a game of Uno? Source: [28] ("おかもと:まずはフレンズのリーダー、涼平さん。SEKIGUCHI LOUIE(以下、SEKIGUCHI):リーダーっていうのはUNOで決まりました(笑)。")
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/IBM PCradio
  • Comment: Regarding ALT1, according to the Japanese Wikipedia article, the leader (Ryōhei Nagashima) was chosen after he lost a game of Uno, though unfortunately I couldn't find a source explicitly saying that he lost the game, only that they played it. Shame, because including him losing would have probably added some fun to the hook.

Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on December 3[edit]

William Rounseville Alger

William Rounseville Alger
William Rounseville Alger

Created by Shuri42 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

3-Hydroxyisonicotinaldehyde

3-Hydroxyisonicotinaldehyde (HINA)
3-Hydroxyisonicotinaldehyde (HINA)
  • Comment: Image not required but would assist readers unfamiliar with chemical names

Created by Michael D. Turnbull (talk). Self-nominated at 15:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Wenzhou Museum

  • ... that the lobby of Wenzhou Museum includes Kuafu chasing the sun and Chang'e flying to the moon? Source: 中厅花岗岩壁面悬挂盘古开天、女娲补天、夸父追日、精卫填海、后羿追日、嫦娥奔月、神农伏羲、燧人取火、大禹治水等九幅中国传统神话题材的铜雕壁画,力图表现中华文明的博大精深。[31]

Created by Mx. Granger (talk). Self-nominated at 03:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Decision of 1789

  • ... that the Decision of 1789 was the first significant construction on the meaning of the United States Constitution in the U.S. Congress? Source: Saikrishna Prakash, New Light on the Decision of 1789, 91 Cornell L. Rev. 1021, 1021 (2006) (stating that the Decision of 1789 was "the first significant legislative construction of the Constitution")

Created by Muttnick (talk). Self-nominated at 03:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC).

Tandiono Manu

  • ... that Tandiono Manu was appointed director in a British firm's Indonesian subsidiary due to his relationship with his predecessor? Source: White, Nicholas J. (2012). "Surviving Sukarno: British Business in Post-Colonial Indonesia, 1950-1967". Modern Asian Studies. 46 (5): 1277–1315. p1306: "An Indonesian subsidiary of London Sumatra was registered in Jakarta and three Indonesian directors were appointed to the board, including Tandiono Manu, ex- Minister of Agriculture, who was believed to be a friend of Sadjarwo"

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 05:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on December 4[edit]

USS Hoggatt Bay

The aircraft carrier
The aircraft carrier

Improved to Good Article status by Stikkyy (talk). Nominated by Heythereimaguy (talk) at 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC).

MLS Cup 2021

Converted from a redirect by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 09:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC).

Play-by-mail game

  • ... that play-by-mail games, also played by email or online today, allow complex gameplay versus many live players with an observer describing an early game as "the most complex game system on Earth"? Source: Judith Proctor (March–April 1993). "PBM Corner: Not Just for a Dull Evening". White Wolf Magazine. No. 35. p. 51 (first sentence in advantages/disadvantages of PBM gaming); Quoted text from Jim Townsend, (1988). "The PBM Corner". White Wolf Magazine. No. 11. p. 20 (in Complexity section); Nicky Palmer (Autumn 1984). "PBEM". Flagship. No. 4. p. 23–24 (for email and online)
  • ALT1: ... that an observer described an early version of a play-by-mail game as "the most complex game system on Earth"? Jim Townsend, (1988). "The PBM Corner". White Wolf Magazine. No. 11. p. 20 (in Complexity section)
  • Comment: Would be nice if this could get a higher placement in the DYK listing on day of posting, if approved. Play-by-mail game articles usually end up as last or second-to-last on the list. Understandable, but this is the main article for the genre, is rated High-Importance for Wiki-Project Board and Table Games, and Mid-Importance for WikiProject Video Games. Appreciate the consideration!

QPQ pending. Improved to Good Article status by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Review Reviewed Metaphorical framing

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Green tickY
  • Neutral: Red XN - The scope of the topic needs work. The initial definition includes any turn-based game using digital media but that seems much too wide. It seems best to stick to physical post because once you include digital media, there now are too many possibilities which will stray far from the core topic – Tabletop Simulator, MMORPGs, and many more.
I had this same discussion with the Good Article reviewer, who is apparently an experienced PBM gamer. The issue is that two 21st century PBM magazines (Flagship and Suspense & Decision) and multiple PBM publishers use turn-based gaming now in place of PBM or PBEM. Here's an example from a current publisher, Madhouse UK. This isn't to imply that PBM games encompass all TBGs—they are just a subset, of course. But removing that from the definition might actually violate WP:NPOV since the article would then not reflect the industry's modern sources. At a minimum, the article would not be comprehensive. I could put a footnote in after the turn-based game definition in the first sentence to clarify that "PBM turn-based games are a subset of the broader turn-based game definition." Would that help?
OK. The GA reviewer is a member of the Guild of Copyeditors and recommended some trimming of the same (done), but I don't mind addressing these and scrubbing back through to see if there are any others.
I fixed these and paraphrased (mainly) or removed the quotes (a few) from about 12–15 others. There are still quotes, but I think it is at a more acceptable level.

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - The hook talks about "today" but is supported by sources from the 1980s.
Will hold off on this until the hook gets sorted out.
  • Interesting: Red XN - It's too long and tries to do too much so the reader will lose interest. Better to just stick to the punchline of "the most complex game system on Earth".
Thanks. I"m unsure about making the hook about just one PBM game. However, the quote does have hook value. I'll trim this hook and develop one or two ALTs. Appreciate the feedback.

QPQ: Red XN - Still pending
Overall: Symbol question.svg If you want better billing then let's find a good picture or a quirky hook. I have some ideas myself ... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew Davidson! Happy to hear ideas on hooks! Pics would be great as well, but are tricky. Many PBM pictures here on Wikipedia are fair use which I think are not allowed on DYK. The public domain ones in the article or in other ones are text-based (PD-text) and may not be good for DYK. Airborne84 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Below are some examples of public domain images from PBM articles. Not sure how others would feel about them as DYK images.

Joseph T. Wilson

  • ... that in the 1880s Joseph T. Wilson wrote the "most comprehensive study of African American military service" of the era? Source: [32]
    • ALT1: ... that Joseph T. Wilson's The Black Phalanx was described as having sales that "surpass[ed] that of any other work written by an Afro-American"? Source: [33]
    • ALT2: ... that after The True Southerner was destroyed by a white mob, the newspaper's biracial editor Joseph T. Wilson founded The Union Republican?
    • ALT3: ... that Joseph T. Wilson was forced to leave his New York regiment in the American Civil War after three days?
    • ALT4: ... that Joseph T. Wilson spent over 25 years attempting to receive a pension and wrote the "most comprehensive study of African American military service"?

Created by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment Suggested two ALTs (I like ALT2, ALT3 kinda falls flat). Hope this helps! :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she?) 20:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Poedjono Pranyoto

  • ... that Poedjono Pranyoto instructed his subordinates to burn around a thousand houses in order to make way for a protected forest area? Source: Lampung villagers' homes burnt Almost a thousand houses have been burnt or torn down by the local government in a brutal attempt to evict the inhabitants of three villages in the Pulau Panggung district of Lampung. The government team, headed by the sub-district chief and assisted by forestry officials, the military and the police, were ordered by the Governor of Lampung, Major-General Poedjono Pranjoto, to start burning houses in November.

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 07:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on December 5[edit]

Arthur Phillip

Improved to Good Article status by Knightmare 3112 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC).

Indian cricket team in England in 1911

Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala
Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala

5x expanded by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 17:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Minttu

Minttu peppermint liqueur.
Minttu peppermint liqueur.
  • ... that although a batch of Minttu peppermint liqueur (pictured) intended for the American market had turned yellow because of iron contamination, the Americans still managed to market it as an "older vintage"? Source: Kauria, Leena (ed.): Meidän tehdas Chymos, Chymoksen historiikki, pp. 51–53, 62–63, Chymos traditional association. ISBN 978-9-5293-4517-5

Created by JIP (talk). Self-nominated at 12:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Daviesia devito, Daviesia schwarzenegger

Created by Gderrin (talk). Self-nominated at 07:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Review in progress. Victuallers (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Victuallers. I'm not sure the names should be capitalised though - the article is not about the actors, but Daviesia devito and D. schwarzenegger. However, I'm happy to defer to anyone more knowledgeable about DYK than I am. Gderrin (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I added an alt but its not up to me to approve it. Victuallers (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Both articles are new and neutral. There is a free image but not included the the hooks. Obviously the two articles describe two very similar plants and there is some common text but maybe enough to establish 1500 chars each. Is there an exemption from QPQ? Victuallers (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The French Suicide

Created by JBchrch (talk). Self-nominated at 06:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Paul Boland

5x expanded by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 00:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on December 6[edit]

Veronica Volkersz

Her maiden name was Veronica May Innes
Her maiden name was Veronica May Innes

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 23:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg@Andrew Davidson: Interesting read. Over 5x expansion from 11/30 through 12/6. Mostly offline sources, accepted on good faith. Issues: 1) The second sentence of 'Early life' needs a citation. 2) Any sentence containing a quote needs a citation directly after the sentence: see 5th paragraph of 'Second World War'. 3) A citation should be added directly after "she took to RAF Moreton Valence". Otherwise good to go. Ping me when these are addressed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Metaphorical framing

Created by MetaGustavo (talk). Self-nominated at 15:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Article is ineligible as it (1) was not created within seven days prior to nomination (nominated 25 days prior), (2) is not a Good Article, and (3) has not had its prose expanded fivefold within seven days of nomination. Will provide nominator feedback on article talk page. Airborne84 (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hebetica sylviae

Hebetica sylviae on white mulberry
Hebetica sylviae on white mulberry
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/That
  • Comment: Oh god theres a new UI for DYK nominations, just when I started getting used to this thing. Welp, heres to hoping this works. I'm a bit short on energy at the moment so if someone can come up with a bit more of a charming hook that would be well appreciated!

Moved to mainspace by QuantumRealm (talk) and Ornithoptera (talk). Nominated by Ornithoptera (talk) at 08:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on December 7[edit]

Tracy Quint

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 04:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC).

Lou Swarz

Created by FloridaArmy (talk) and Silver seren (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 00:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC).

Hypericum aegypticum

5x expanded by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg While this article is interesting and well-written (although possibly a bit technical), it has not been sufficiently expanded. The recent expansion raised it from 4.8kb to 21.7k, only a 4.5-fold expansion, while five-fold is required. So the article is long enough and within policy, but not "new" enough. If it were further expanded, it would be fine.
The alternate hook is quite good: punchy-quick, makes you want to find out more. I would suggest using it if the article were to qualify. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Piledhigheranddeeper: Hello, thank you for the review! Unless I'm mistaken, the expansion is 5x based on the DYK material, that being prose characters. Using the DYK checker tool, the original article was 1029 characters, while the expansion is 9931 characters, a roughly 10x expansion. Is there a different way this is calculated? If so I can scrounge around for enough info to fill a few thousand more bytes. I 100% agree that a stripped down hook is better, what are your thoughts on this one: "... that Hypericum aegypticum exhibits a rare form of heterostyly with dominant pins and recessive thrums?" Just has a bit more meat to it, in my opinion. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 16:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe you're right, and I did use the wrong figure. Apologies for that! As to the revised hook, my only concern is that you are introducing three new (to most) terms, which might be a bit intimidating to the average reader. The original alternate hook's beauty was that it had only one unusual term, and it was linked, practically inviting the reader to click on it to see what it was. But I can defer to wiser minds... Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking back at it I think the ALT1 is the way to go, definitely. I'll get right on doing a QPQ, thank you again! Fritzmann (message me) 18:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)