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
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.

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
September 2 1
September 24 1
September 27 1
October 5 1
October 9 2
October 10 1
October 11 1
October 14 1
October 18 1 1
October 22 1
October 24 2
October 25 1
October 27 1 1
October 28 2
October 29 2
October 31 1
November 1 3 2
November 2 3 1
November 3 4 1
November 4 5 3
November 5 4 2
November 6 4 4
November 7 9 7
November 8 10 10
November 9 15 15
November 10 5 4
November 11 6 5
November 12 10 6
November 13 23 13
November 14 13 9
November 15 13 9
November 16 15 7
November 17 7 4
November 18 21 6
November 19 9 2
November 20
Total 199 112
Last updated 04:49, 20 November 2021 UTC
Current time is 05:53, 20 November 2021 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Shortcut

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning: You are not logged in. Please create an account or log in to proceed.
Alternatively, you may leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose.

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning: The helper script only works on desktop. Please switch to desktop view to continue.

Screenshot of Wikipedia, showing the "More" dropdown menu along the top of the page, with the DYK option circled
  1. Install the DYK helper script by adding the line {{subst:lusc|User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js}} to your common.js page.
  2. Go back to the article, and choose the "DYK" option from the "More" menu (see image).
  3. Fill in the form and submit it.
  4. Check back periodically to address comments or concerns from the reviewer (it may take several weeks).

Manual instructions[edit]

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.

For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Publish page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.
III.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Publish page.

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]

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

  • Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
  • Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
  • The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
  • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

    Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
  • Save the page.

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 September 2[edit]

Inger K. Frith

  • ... that after being a high ranked pilot during World War II, Inger K. Frith became the first female president of an international sports organization and returned archery to the Olympics?
    Source: 1 "Mrs. Inger K. FRITH, the only lady President of an International Sports Federation”; 2 “ the highest ranking Danish woman in service during the Second World War” & “ She is the first woman to serve as president of an international sports federation. She is main architect of Archery's reintroduction to the Olympic programme in 1972”.
    • ALT1:... that after serving in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War, Inger K. Frith became the first woman to lead a major international sporting federation and returned archery to the Olympics? Barker, Philip. "Inger Frith blazed a trail for women in sports governance". (Proposed as a possible alternative by Cavalryman)
    • ALT2:... that after serving in the South African Air Force during the Second World War, Inger K. Frith became the first woman to lead a major international sporting federation and returned archery to the Olympics? Barker, Philip. "Inger Frith blazed a trail for women in sports governance". (Proposed as a possible alternative by Cavalryman)
    • ALT3:... that Inger K. Frith, the first woman president of a major international sporting federation, played a key role in returning archery to the Olympics? (proposed by PMCH2

Created by SportsOlympic (talk). Self-nominated at 14:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC). SportsOlympic has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Created by Cavalryman (talk)

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Sources:
  1. "Olympedia – Inger K. Frith". www.olympedia.org. – this source is of questionable reliability.
  2. MRS. INGER FRITH, Olympic Review, 1971 – the link doesn’t work for me and there is inadequate bibliographic information for me to verify what it is.
  3. "Danish WW2 Pilots | Inger Kristine Frith (née Pragholm) (1909 - 1981)". www.danishww2pilots.dk. – I am satisfied a website run by Mikkel Plannthin about WWII Danish pilots is generally reliable (he has been published writing about this subject matter) but ... this seems to have been written largely from information gained in this forum thread and there is a big disclaimer at the bottom of this article raising some very significant discrepancies within the entry, which are included as fact in the article. Particularly the rank of Captain which never existed in the WAAF. I feel this raises questions about the reliability of the source.
  4. "Inger Frith blazed a trail for women in sports governance". www.insidethegames.biz. March 5, 2021. – looks reliable to me.
  • The third paragraph in the WWII section is uncited.
  • Filling more parameters in Template:Cite web, particularly authorship, would go a long way to presentation.
  1. likely the highest ranked Danish woman in service during the Second World War – the cited source states that she was the highest ranked that the author is aware of.
  2. She became a volunteer in the army in Cape Town and was later accepted for the Air Force – the cited source makes no mention of the Army.

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - cites two sources with issues as described above
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - perhaps base the hook on excellent insidethegames.biz article, something like “ that after serving in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War, Inger K. Frith became the first woman to lead a major international sporting federation and returned archery to the Olympics?” I have added it as a possible alternate above but am happy to play with it.

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I apologise if I seem to have been very harsh and I could be being very finicky, but the article is very clunky to read, with short little sentences and paragraphs that I feel don’t flow very well. Further, there is no such thing as the “British Air Force”, it is the United Kingdom’s air force or the Royal Air Force. Earwig shows 13.8% match to the Plannthin webpage, but I don’t think it breaches the COPYVIO threshold. Also QPQ is required. Cavalryman (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

Hello @SportsOlympic: this nomination has been sitting here for almost a week and I can see you have not edited the article, nor have you supplied a QPQ. Are you still interested in pursuing the nomination? Cavalryman (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC).
Olympedia are the same people as Sports Reference and is states at WP:Sports as reliable. It’s a pitty you can’t open the second source, is has great and reliable content. So the main issue is that it stated that she was Captain and the naming of the British Air Force? I’m not native English, so I can’t write it in high class English. As that is a problem, I can’t improve it to your satisfactions. I will rename the Air Force name and title of Captain because that might me wrong. Next to that, I don’t like your other option: it not mentioned she had a high rank and she was the first female at an sports federation SportsOlympic (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I can find no such reference at WP:Sports but perhaps I am missing something, there has only been one discussion at the reliable source noticeboard WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#Olympedia, that being said it is not used to cite anything controversial. Whilst you have made a couple of small fixes, you missed some of the nuance in my comments above particularly those points listed in green. Further, the claim in the hook to be high ranked depends upon if the rank of Captain (which is clearly wrong) is supposed to be an Army or a Navy Captain, a Captain in the Army is not high ranked, Navy is getting up there. As it stands I feel this article is not at the standard required to be featured on the main page, but I am happy for others to take a look at it. Cavalryman (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC).
I have not looked at the article but would like to confirm that Olympedia is an authoritative source for Olympic bios. Schwede66 18:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Schwede66, many thanks, honestly Olympedia is the least of the issues here. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC).

Symbol delete vote.svg It has been over a week and the nominator has made very little effort to rectify many of the issues raised above, nor have they supplied a QPQ (I was considering donating a QPQ if issues were rectified). They have received a TP notification [1] and been pinged above, so unfortunately I think this should be marked as ineligible and closed. Cavalryman (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Hi Cavalryman, I've done considerable cleanup work on the article, finding published sources for a good bit of the material, and rewriting some parts based on the additions. This one should get a whole new review. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It might need a new hook too:
@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: you sure have done some work on it, I will endeavour to provide a second review soon. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY

QPQ: Red XN - /
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg There are still issues:

  • Sources:
  1. "Inger K. Frith". Olympedia. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY consensus here seems to be this is fairly reliable, it only used to cite name, DOB & DOD which is uncontroversial (but other issue below)
  2. "Danish WW2 Pilots | Inger Kristine Frith (née Pragholm) (1909 - 1981)". www.danishww2pilots.dk. checkY the clarification in Plannthin's book that she was in fact enlisted in the South African Air Force answers the rank (see South African military ranks#Air Force) and service number questions. See general note below.
  3. Plannthin, Mikkel (August 19, 2017). Britain's Victory, Denmark's Freedom: Danish Volunteers in Allied Air Forces During the Second World War. United Kingdom: Fonthill Media. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  4. Boehm, H. (1981). "In Memoriam" (PDF). FITA: Bulletin Officiel of the International Archery Federation30-31-32: 4–5. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  5. Sawyer, J. S. (1971). "RETIREMENT OF DR R. FRITH, O.B.E.". The Meteorological Magazine. 100 (1184). checkY
  6. "METEOROLOGICAL BRANCH" (PDF). Supplement to the London Gazette: 4882. 18 September 1951. Question? reliable as a primary source, but if it used it should have in-text attribution. Really this source is unnecessary as the second source above states everything here.
  7. Barker, Philip (5 March 2021). "Inger Frith blazed a trail for women in sports governance". Inside the Games. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  8. Rhode, Robert J. (1981). History of the Federation International De Tir A L Arc (PDF). I. Mahomet, ILL U.S.A. p. 326. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  9. Olympic Encyclopedia April 1985 Gymnastics and Archery. Comite International Olympique. 1985. pp. 50–56. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  10. "Mrs. Inger Frith" (PDF). Olympic Review. 1971. Retrieved 17 September 2021. ☒N there is still insufficient bibliographic information to meet WP:V - removed
  11. "Deaths: Frith, Inger Kristine Frith". The Times. October 26, 1981. p. 22. Question? reliable as a primary source, but again requiring in-text attribution, as in "According to the death notice". Death notices are what someone's family what published, not necessarily the truth. The information cited here is covered in other sources above. - reworded
  12. General note - more bibliographic information needs to be added to nearly all of the sources, particularly author (if available) and date of publication, but also publisher and location. If links break there is insufficient detail to meet WP:V and so the broken source and whatever is cited to it may be removed. - archive links added
  • Other problems:
  1. Inger Kristine Pragholm-Frith (23 January 1909 – 24 October 1981) The hyphenated surname Pragholm-Frith is not in any of the sources. - has been removed
  2. Inger Kristine Pragholm was born in Denmark on 23 January 1909. The cited source does not state she was born in Denmark, just that she was Danish and in 1940 she left Denmark for Paris. - resolved by changing citation
  3. After reaching South Africa she joined the South African Air Force. The cited source source makes no mention of the South African Air Force. - this has been resolved by changing citation
  4. The paragraph with the above sentence is very clunky and awkward to read, it requires copyediting. DONE
  5. Capt. Inger Kristine Frith (nee Pragholm) is recorded as being born on 23 January 1909, and having served (W/265733) in the South African Air Force (SAAF) from 23 October 1941 to 21 July 1945 as a meteorologist/forecaster. Extremely awkward, and leading with Captain gives the impression that she was subsequently demoted to Second Lieutenant in the following paragraph. - reworded
  6. She and her husband eventually settled in Crowthorne. Sticks out like a sore thumb, maybe move it into the later life section, as in "died in Crowthorne where she and Ronald had established their home."REMOVED
  7. In 1985, she was credited as "the main architect of archery's reintroduction to the Olympic programme in 1972." This quote needs in-text attribution. DONE
  • It's getting closer, with some of the issues raised in the first review have still not been resolved, and care needs to taken to ensure the correct source is used to cite certain pieces of information. I have struck ALT0 because we have now clarified that she was not "a high ranked pilot during World War II". Cavalryman (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC).
I have also struck my first ALT1 as she did not serve in the RAF but instead served in the SAAF, so have added ALT2, with no preference between it and ALT4. Cavalryman (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC). ALT numbers amended to reflect added ALT3 above. Cavalryman (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC).
Unfortunately, Cavalryman, there were two hooks labeled ALT3. I renamed the second one "ALT4", but you should specify whether you were referring to the first ALT3 or the one now called ALT4. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mandarax: yes I can see the second ALT3 was added here, I have amended my comment accordingly. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC).
I have copy-edited the article. She served in both the Women's RAF and the SAAF, but I am not sure that the article needs to be held up over debates about her wartime service. I have proposed an alternative that just focuses on her role in sports. The article is worth including in DYK, so I am happy to step in a help get it finished. The sources seem credible to me. Are there other issues left? PMCH2 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, not all of the issues raised in the above review have been addressed. Further, then sent to Cairo where she transferred from the SAAF to Great Britain's Women's Royal Air Force, receiving a commission contradicts the preceding paragraph that says she served ... in the South African Air Force (SAAF) from 23 October 1941 to 21 July 1945 and the fact that to have been a Second Lieutenant she must already have been a commissioned officer. Cavalryman (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC).
I have added archive links for sources that don't have authors. I removed the one link that didn't work. Others have appropriate details. I have replied above to the concerns I have addressed. I removed the phrase about the commission. I have done my best to address all the issues. PMCH2 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@PMCH2: when I get a chance I will have another detailed look. At a cursory glance, there is still plenty of room to add more bibliographic information to the citations, for instance the www.danishww2pilots.dk source should be:
Plannthin, Mikkel (12 September 2010). "Inger Kristine Frith (née Pragholm)". Danish WW2 Pilots. Archived from the original on 31 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
I will look at the rest soon. Also, a QPQ still has not been provided. Cavalryman (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC).
I haven't seen a DYK be scrutinized this closely before in regards to citations. I stepped in to try to help, but it's not my article, and I have spent as much time as I can. You seem to have a very high bar. I don't have a DYK credit to donate. 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry you think I am being overly harsh, but I think it is plain sloppy not including proper attribution, and the with the example above I think the fact that the same author is responsible for two cited sources is relevant. I initially reviewed the article because I thought the subject was interesting and worthy of some time in the main page sun. But I too have found it frustrating, I have conducted two complete reviews and even then my findings have not been acted upon, and further still there has been a stunningly consistent lack of attention to detail. I will now do some editing of the article to bring it up to a standard I believe is required. Cavalryman (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for your edits on the article. It reads better and I can see you have cleaned up the sources. I will do a QPQ this weekend, so we can get this over the line.PMCH2 (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. If you cannot I will try to do one. I also intend to email World Archery to see if we can get a photo. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

I have reviewed Kennin Rebellion for DYK. Thanks for chasing down a photo - that would be great.PMCH2 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. Re photo I have been had correspondence with World Archery and they have said we can use the 1961 photo in this article, I am just trying to get them to confirm what license they are happy to release it under.
Given I am now responsible for over 70% of the text [2], should a fresh reviewer have a look at this? Cavalryman (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC).
After some initial positive correspondence World Archery not responded about licenses for almost a week. I will send one more email but am not holding my breath that a photo will be released. Cavalryman (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC).
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg yeah, I think we're going to need a new reviewer on this one. Cavalryman, given your contributions to getting this article to DYK, I've added you to the credits section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg As best I can tell, the major issues concerning sourcing and attribution have been addressed, and this article seems ready for the main page. Thanks to everyone who contributed to make this work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: if a photo is released I will ping you to see if you are happy for it to be added to the nomination. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC).
Re photo ... the person I have been corresponding with at World Archery needs to return to the office to confirm their ownership status of this picture, due to covid that cannot occur before 4th November. I request this be held off until then. Cavalryman (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC).
@Cavalryman: Symbol possible vote.svg happy to wait. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Any updates on the image? If we waiting just for the image, I'll suggest to let this nomination run without an image. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As said above I do not expect any word before the 4th of November. If there is a chronic shortage of articles for DYK then by all means run this, but it would be a shame to potentially deny this most capable woman a face when she is featured for the sake of a week. Cavalryman (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC).

There is no shortage of hooks on DYK. I was just concerned about how backlogged this particular nomination is. If it is worth waiting for the image, no issues then. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I have just received this in an email from World Archery:

I checked last Thursday in our old history books, but there is no mention of photographer there.
However, I'm on another track that was given to me by the author of another book on the history of our federation, but I'll have to check it out this Thursday when I'm again in the office.
Things are in progress, and I should be able to give you some good news by next week!

If everyone is happy to wait a few more days hopefully we’ll have a photo. Cavalryman (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC).
  • theleekycauldron, I'm trying to remember. Why don't you ask at WT:DYK and see whether there are any recollections about past cases, or strong opinions either way. Sorry I can't be more definitive. On the matter of promoting, the nomination will be three months old on December 2, and should have been promoted prior to then. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I was going to give an update this morning (Australian time). I had an email overnight from World Archery wanting to clarify the process of uploading a picture, I wouldn’t mind betting there will be an email with photo attached in the inbox at permissions@wikimedia.org tomorrow Swiss time. I agree, if there is no image within a week promote it, this has been a lengthy process. Cavalryman (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 24[edit]

Economy of Sarawak

Created/expanded by Cerevisae (talk). Self-nominated at 08:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Thanks for your suggestion. Table moved to sandbox for further expansion. Cerevisae (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I have carried out some copyedits, let me know if there are areas that need another run-through. CMD (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply! Anyway, ALT0 is probably the best hook among the three proposed (ALT1 seems unimpressive to me while ALT2 may need additional context). However, the sentence verifying ALT0 doesn't have a footnote; instead, the references for it are spread across other nearby sentences instead, duplication is needed here for DYK purposes. In addition, it may be a good idea to propose an additional hook about Sarawak being the biggest timber exporter in the 1980s since that fact seems more interesting than the others discussed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
added ALT 3. Cerevisae (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the proposal; however, I feel that it may not meet WP:EGG. Would it be possible to rewrite ALT3 to make the link to "Economy of Sarawak" clearer? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
talk, ALT 3 changed. Cerevisae (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
ALT3 reads better, but it may still need to be copyedited for grammar. In addition it lacks a bold link to the DYK article subject. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hook copyedited. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Thank you for the edits. Now the article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination and no close paraphrasing was found. However, there are still a number of outstanding issues. Firstly, the sentence that mentions the main hook fact is lacking a footnote, with the relevant reference instead coming at the end of the paragraph where the fact is located at; duplication is necessary here per DYK rules. Secondly, the article doesn't say that the timber industry contributed "greatly" to Sarawak's economy: I would suggest deleting the word "greatly" from the hook, with the rest of that part being accepted as it's implied by the rest of the article. Thirdly, a QPQ has yet to be provided; this was the nominator's sixth nomination, so a QPQ should have been provided at the time of the nomination or within a week of then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chiou Sia, Tan (2015). Forecasting the gross domestic product (GDP) of Sarawak (PDF). Sarawak: Faculty of Economics and Business University Malaysia Sarawak. pp. 6–7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 September 2021. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  2. ^ "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) By State 2020". Department of Statistics Malaysia. Archived from the original on 1 July 2021. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
  3. ^ Fumitaka, Furuoka (2014). "Economic Development in Sarawak, Malaysia: An overview" (PDF). Munich Personal RePEc Archive. University of Malaya: 2–3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-06-02. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
  4. ^ Tachibana, Satoshi. "FOREST-RELATED INDUSTRIES AND TIMBER EXPORTS OF MALAYSIA: POLICY AND STRUCTURE" (PDF). Institute for Global Environmental Stragies conference paper. Retrieved 12 October 2021.

Articles created/expanded on September 27[edit]

Roman campaigns in Germania (12 BC – AD 16)

  • ... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes following the disaster at Teutoburg, but decided to leave Germany because its land was not considered valuable? Source: Wells (2003), The Battle That Stopped Rome, pp. 206–7

Improved to Good Article status by SpartaN (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - Source is offline but happy to AGF. However, in the article the statement “they considered German lands too poor for annexation” is sourced to p.204 of Wells. pp.206-7 referred to above is used to support that they that “it was too costly in economic and military resources” to go into in Germany. I guess either way the hook is sourced but could you clarify the exact sourcing of the hook.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Interesting thorough article, well-written with good quality sourcing. Earwig shows no issues. Just a minor query around the hook sourcing but otherwise will be good to go. DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I found the web link that (for me) shows a preview if you're able to see it: https://books.google.com/books?id=mc30CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206
SpartaN (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@SpartaN: Thanks for providing the link. It’s prompted a couple of thoughts for me. Firstly, Wells doesn’t seem to be saying the reason for the withdrawal is definitively known (“… the reasons for these decisions must have lain…”) i.e he’s making an assumption, however well founded. The hook is more definite than Wells is. Secondly, Wells’ emphasis is on the strength of the resistance being behind the reason - the poor value of the territory makes it “not worth it” because of the strength of the resistance. That’s not quite the same as just saying the land wasn’t valuable. (I notice the text you used in the article on this reflects that effort/value ratio issue.) To fix both points would you be prepared to consider an ALT1 which after “…Teutoburg” continues something along the lines of “…likely decided to leave Germany because the military effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?” although there may need to be some trimming to get it into the 200 character limit. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @SpartaN and DeCausa: It's been over a month since the last comments here, have there been any updates? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    From my point of view I’m waiting for SpartaN’s reply to my last post here. But I notice they haven’t edited Wikipedia since then, over a month ago. So I’m not quite sure what can be done. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. Given that there's really only one issue holding the nomination back, would anyone be willing to adopt this in case SpartaN doesn't return? It would be a shame if the nomination failed at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I’m not sure what exactly are the DYK rules on this but, subject to that, options could be (a) I propose an ALT1 hook and someone else signs it off; (b) someone else proposes an ALT1 hook and I sign it off; (c) if anyone disagrees with me on the original hook I’m happy to step away and they sign it off. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I've looked at the Wells source and concur that it is saying the withdrawal was more down to the ratio of effort required to potential reward, and have boldly tweaked the copy in the article to reflect this. For what it's worth, I think ALT1 works just fine. firefly ( t · c ) 11:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I’m just going to formalize the ALT1 and let someone else add the tick and sign off:
  • ALT1:... that the Romans won a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes after the disaster at Teutoburg but likely decided to leave Germany as the effort was out of proportion to the territory’s value?
DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Since the reviewer has proposed a new hook, another editor will be needed to sign this off. I'm not sure though if the section linking in the bold links is allowed, however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    sorry, I missed that. It’s not even necessary to link to a section of the article so I’ve taken it out of ALT1. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 5[edit]

Pushbacks in Greece

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg – The article is long enough (16,688 characters) and new enough (created on October 4, 2021). It cites various sources, and Earwig's Copyvio detector shows 29.1% similarity (violation unlikely). But ... It has few neutrality issues including a neutrality tag. The hook seems fine, and maybe cited in the article. Can we have a source here? Rest, a QPQ has been done. Till the neutrality concerns are resolved, this DYK nomination should be on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Kavyansh.Singh I rewrote the disputed section based on more reliable sources. Unfortunately, it was reverted immediately by ‎Khirurg who appears to think that the New York Times is not a reliable source. Perhaps they would explain here why they object. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah you rewrote it alright - by removing a whole bunch of sources. Maybe you can explain why AP is not reliable source? Perhaps you can also explain why you removed the POV tag, even though your edit did not address any of the issues raised in the talkpage? Khirurg (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Khirurg : Hi, I don't think the AP source supports the content it's cited for. The AP source reports that Greece has made certain accusations, it doesn't say whether they are correct or not. I'm not sure how Greek accusations against Turkey (regardless of whether they are correct or not) have any bearing about this article, which is about Greece. Cleanup tags should be removed unless there is active discussion ongoing and the person placing it can substantiate that there is a problem with the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not only you removed AP news, you also removed the Brussels International Center. Your edits made the article even more POV, by trying to spin away the hostile actions of the Turkish government. And it's not a "cleanup tag", it's POV tag, and there is very much an active discussion going on, first of all right here. If you are avoiding the article talkpage and spin that "no discussion ongoing", that's not going to work. Khirurg (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Khirurg Actually I have no opinion on the reliability of BIC at this point, but I hesitate to cite think tanks when there are better sources available (I cited the New York Times, Verfassungsblog and an academic paper, all of which are higher quality than a think tank). I checked several sources and all of them mention that the main change in February-March 2020 was opening the border to migrants, some also mention that Turkey bussed migrants to the border or that at least one incident of coercing migrants was reported. Your wording suggests that all or many migrants since then were coerced to travel to Greece. This is misleading because few if any reliable sources support coercive "push" tactics being a widespread or systematic practice by Turkey at its border with Greece. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not only is BIC itself a perfectly reliable source (much more so than the partisan NGOs you have filled the article with), but it's really not hard to find sources about the Turkish government coercing migrants to the border [3]. This assume of course that one in inclined to look for sources, instead of pretending they don't exist. And here [4] (and then doubled down [5], you seem to have followed me to a Requested Move I recently participated in, in what appears to be clear WP:HOUND behavior. So everyone can see what's going on here. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, coming back to the DYK criteria, this seems to meet everything except the neutrality issues. I see that there has been no active discussion on the talk page form at-least 17 days. @Buidhe Any updates on @Khirurg's concerns? I can' formally approve this until the neutrality concerns are resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Great, now you can filibuster DYKs you don't like by raising spurious "concerns" and inserting loaded language. (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
What "loaded language"? I raised my concerns in the talkpage, and you've done nothing but edit-war since then. Khirurg (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The most egregiously loaded language I recall was a human rights violation that encapsulates a will to eliminate a person’s presence on the face of the planet, which was added by you. Khirurg (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You insist on inserting loaded language like "Weaponization of migration" and "coercive engineered migration" which simply do not reflect the majority reliable sources (and are only tangentially related to the article topic, because they are accusations against Turkey rather than Greece) as explained above. I explained that you have misrepresented sources as seen above, and substituted opinion pieces for news coverage and peer-reviewed academic papers, and all you do is revert. So it's unclear to me how any progress can be made here. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Everything I have added is sourced to reliable sources. As far as opinion pieces, you're the one that has added those, such as this opinion piece written by grad students [6]. You haven't made the slightest effort to meet me halfway, instead you just blanket-revert all my additions claiming "my sources are better than yours". No attempt at dispute resolution, just blanket reverts like this [7]. The article is mainly based on activist NGO sources. Yes, there can be no progress under these conditions. Khirurg (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You literally replaced a news article from the New York Times and academic paper with an opinion piece from The Hill regarding the March 2020 escalation in order to replace fact-based description with loaded language of "weaponization". I did not cite any opinion pieces in the article, and it's a lie to say that the article is "mainly based on activist NGO sources". (t · c) buidhe 03:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed). I just linked to an opinion piece you put in the article in my previous post. InfoMigrants, Mare Liberum, Aegean Boat Report are all activist NGOs used as references (to name just a few). The only way to resolve this is through some form of third party mediation. Would you be agreeable to something like that, yes or no? Khirurg (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That's simply untrue, InfoMigrants is a journalism outfit based on a media partnership, not a NGO let alone an "activist" one, and the EJIL Talk piece is expert analysis, not from their editorial section. As for third party mediation, sure why not? But I can't see the use in repeating points that were ignored the first time. (t · c) buidhe 12:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Buidhe: imho, the best way to break a filibuster is the old fashioned way: cloture motion. I'd recommend that you get as many eyes on this as possible, see if a clearer consensus falls out. my confidence in either of you conceding your point is dwindling, so this back-and-forth seems unhelpful, as you both pointed out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

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 [8][9][10][11][12] 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)
  • 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: 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 (talk • contribs) (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 (talk • contribs) (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 (talk • contribs) (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)
  • 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)

Crime in Latvia

Created by TootsieRollsAddict (talk). Self-nominated at 06:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - Doesn't seem like the hook is quite accurate—quoting "crime capital of Europe" makes it seem like Forbes said specifically those words, but the source doesn't bear that out
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @TootsieRollsAddict: Nice work so far! There's some work left to do—you might want to request a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors. Your choice, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:The ironic fact about this is that I MYSELF am a Guild Of Copy Editors member, although I don't do too much. But I got rid of the close paraphrasing, and here is the Forbes article that mentions exactly what the DYK says: this one. You can tell me more later, although don't expect me to reply for a long time. TootsieRollsAddict (talk to me pls I am lonely) 11:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@TootsieRollsAddict: ah, haha! that is ironic. We're good on paraphrasing, but we'll still need a copyedit, and i don't see the words "crime capital of Europe" in that order anywhere in the forbes article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I'll write a new alt. I don't know about the copyediting part though. Maybe I'll have to request one. TootsieRollsAddict (talk to me pls I am lonely) 00:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 10[edit]

Archon of Pella

5x expanded by MRichards01 (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 04:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

  • @Casliber: Symbol possible vote.svg Meets newness requirements, article just shy of 5× expansion at 2042 bytes (2085 needed to fully qualify). Willing to let it slide but I'm sure we can squeeze a few more words somewhere. Very slightly tweaked the hook to include the "BC". QPQ checks out. I can just about verify the hook fact in the cited article in Italian with machine translation, but the corresponding sentence in the article needs a citation directly after it. It's also not super interesting; perhaps we can mention his defeat to Dokimos somehow? (I am far from a scholar of ancient Greece but it's interesting how they're both Generals of Alexander the Great! Is their pitting against each other after Alexander's death not relevant?) DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review -Not my area of expertise but will have a go....might take some thinking about...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Casliber and DigitalIceAge: How does this sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I like it. Been meaning to get back to this.....had to do some adulting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Also just to clarify DigitalIceAge, the requirement is 1500 characters, not 2085 bytes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I like it too. Re bytes: I'm referring to the post-expansion size. Before expansion: 417 prose bytes, so 2085 bytes needed for expansion. Currently: 2041 bytes DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Also no worries Casliber, take your time. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
As it's been another two weeks, pinging Cas Liber to see whether they expect to return soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Just can it. I am not familiar with the are and have alot going on at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 11[edit]

Dianxi Xiaoge

  • ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, is one of only three Chinese Internet celebrities who have reached international prominence?
    Source:
    1. 诸未静 (2019-12-23). 林涛 (ed.). "网红出海热 谁能成为下一个"李子柒"？" [Internet celebrities are become popular overseas. Who can become the next "Li Ziqi"?]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via Nanfang Daily.

      The article notes: "NoxInfluencer统计结果显示，真正在海外走红并成功变现的中国区网红只有排名前三位的“办公室小野”“李子柒”和“滇西小哥”。三者的视频均是“美食默片”，长度控制在5至10分钟，出镜者言语不多，借助简单英文字幕即可让全世界网友心领神会。"

      From Google Translate: "NoxInfluencer statistics show that the only Chinese Internet celebrities who have become popular overseas and been successfully realized are only the top three of Ms Yeah, Li Ziqi, and Dianxi Xiaoge. The three vloggers' channels all make "food silent films", the length is controlled at 5 to 10 minutes, and the person who appears on the screen doesn't speak much. With the help of simple English subtitles, netizens all over the world can understand."

    2. 严瑜 (2020-09-03). 胡文卉 (ed.). "访侨乡保山美食博主"滇西小哥"：感受朴素的幸福" [Interviewing Baoshan food blogger Dianxi Xiaoge in a region well-known for Chinese expatriates: Feel the simple happiness]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

      The article notes: "“小哥”，说的便是“滇西小哥”。这位全网粉丝量超过1600万的美食博主，制作发布的云南美食视频，单期平均播放量达2000万次左右。这样一位美食博主，竟然生活在如此偏僻的山野之中？ ... “滇西小哥”本名董梅华，是个“90后”。算起来，回乡已有4年。“小时候，走出去的愿望特别强烈。... 高考填志愿，一所云南的学校都没选， ... 在“滇西小哥”的记忆里，上小学之前，村里还没通自来水。每天清晨，妈妈都得起个大早，去山脚的那口泉眼挑几大桶水回来。"

      From Google Translate: ""Little Brother" refers to "Dianxi Xiaoge". This food blogger with more than 16 million fans on the entire network has produced and released Yunnan food videos with an average of about 20 million views in a single issue. Such a food blogger lives in such remote mountains? ... "Dianxi Xiaoge", whose real name is Dong Meihua, is a "post-90s". After calculating, it has been 4 years since she returned to her hometown. "When I was young, I had a strong desire to go out.... Filling up my wish for the college entrance examination, I didn't choose a school in Yunnan. ... In the memory of Dianxi Xiaoge, before she went to primary school, the village had no running water. Every morning, her mother had to get up early to pick up a few large buckets of water from the spring at the foot of the mountain."

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 07:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

  • The phrase "真正在海外走红并成功变现的中国区网红只有排名前三位的" means "the only Chinese Internet celebrities who have truly become prominent overseas and successfully cashed in are the top three [in the rankings...] 变现 means to monetize (literally: turn into cash), not "successfully realized". But the article doesn't say what it means to "truly become prominent", nor what it means to "successfully cash in", so the hook seems vague. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The Nanfang Daily is basing their assessment on analysis they conducted using data from NoxInfluencer.

    Here is an alternative hook:

    ALT1: ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, went viral in China and internationally after making hamburgers for her grandparents who had never eaten them before?

    Sources:

    1. Wei, Clarissa (2020-02-05). "Dianxi Xiaoge Exclusive Interview, China's Viral Cooking Sensation (At Home with DXXG – E1)". Goldthread. South China Morning Post Publishers. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via YouTube.

      At 3:33 in the video: "The video that helped her go viral, on both domestic and international platforms, was this one ... in which she makes a hamburger Chinese country-side style. 'Because my grandparents and family members have spent their whole lives in the countryside, I really wanted them to try hamburgers. Because in their eyes, hamburgers are Western food and a novelty. I kept wanting to take them out for hamburgers, but I moved back to Yunnan before I could. So I figured I'd make them myself.'"

    2. Wei, Clarissa (2020-03-12). "Dianxi Xiaoge's recipe for hamburgers with a Chinese twist". Goldthread. South China Morning Post Publishers. Archived from the original on 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      The article notes: "The reason she wanted to tackle the hamburger is sentimental. “My grandma and grandpa had never had a burger before,” she tells us, “and I wanted to make them one based on how I remembered eating it in the city.”"

    Cunard (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg This is not a review but a comment; ALT1 is just simply too long (it's 200 characters when including the question mark, 199 without). I'd be in favor instead of the hook being split into two separate proposals: one hook about the fact that she was an internet celebrity who grew up in a place without tap water, and a separate hook about her going viral for making hamburgers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, which can also address the issue of the borderline ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg As far as I can tell the article meets DYK requirements, and a QPQ has been done. Earwigs finds a close match with Coda Media, but that's only because it was the source for quotes in the article, and all of them are properly referenced. I find the first hook hard to believe given China's international standing, and in any case as brought up by Bowlhover may be inaccurate anyway. As for the second hook, as I mentioned before it's ineligible as it's exactly 200 characters long, and per WP:DYK hooks that are at or shorter than 200 characters may be rejected per reviewer's discretion. Both ALT0 and ALT1 have struck: I am repeating my earlier suggestion that ALT1 instead be split into two separate hooks. As this is a China-related article and there appear to be some political discussion in the article, I'd also like to ask for a second opinion from someone more knowledgeable about China-related articles if the article doesn't fall afoul of relevant guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook:

    The hook should be concise: no more than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ..., the space immediately following the ..., or any (pictured)). While 200 is a hard limit, hooks near or at this limit may still be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and administrators. This tool can be used for counting words.

    The guideline says that "200 is a hard limit", so it is not true that the 200-character ALT1 hook is "ineligible" or "simply too long". No reason has been given for rejecting a 200-character hook "at the discretion of reviewers".

    Here are two additional hooks based on the suggestion:

    ALT2: ... that Dianxi Xiaoge, who grew up in a remote Yunnan mountain without running water, is an Internet celebrity with roughly 16 million subscribers on all her platforms?

    ALT3: ... Dianxi Xiaoge went viral in China and internationally after making hamburgers for her grandparents who had never eaten them before?

    Cunard (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Well for one thing, the original was very difficult to read and seemed to combine too many facts into one hook. Usually DYK prefers simpler hooks whenever possible. In any case, I think ALT3 is the best hook here and the nomination is otherwise good to go, I'd just like to hear a second opinion from another editor on the article tone given that I'm a bit uncomfortable doing a solo review here given the "Commentary" section delves into some political matters. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, I have some concerns regarding the length of the article. Isn't it rather detailed for an internet celebrity's page? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
That the article is "rather detailed for an internet celebrity's page" should not be a concern. The sources provided substantial analysis of her and her work, and this article reflects those sources. Other detailed articles for Internet celebrities include PewDiePie and MrBeast. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Gatoclass for his input, as he responded to a discussion I raised about this nomination over at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need Gatoclass to restate themself. Here's what they said at WT:DYK:

The article doesn't use the phrase "one of only three Chinese influencers to gain international influence", so I'm not sure where you got that, but it does say she is one of only three "Chinese Internet celebrities who have reached international prominence", and the problem with that claim is that it's sourced to an article that is two years old and therefore not up-to-date. With regard to the overall length, I would agree that it is overly detailed and could use a trim. I'm not sure this is relevant to DYK however, as "overly detailed" is not one of our criteria. What I would say is that the level of detail does raise the chances of close paraphrasing so the article would need to be carefully checked for that. Anybody else with an opinion on this article? Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 14[edit]

Milena Smit

  • ... that Pedro Almodóvar said that actress Milena Smit "possesses an emotional intelligence and sincerity that cannot be learned in any school"? Source: "In the text Pedro Almodóvar wrote about Milena Smit for the September issue of Vogue Spain, he said the actor “possesses an emotional intelligence and sincerity that cannot be learned in any school.” " (Vogue)

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg It's new and long enough, so that's all fine, and the references seem fine too--but the article still needs work. I edited it a bit but it needs more copyedits--for phrasing, and for punctuation (comma splices). Also, the filmography needs some expansion; Cross the Line isn't in there, for instance. But the biggest problem I have is with the hook--a hook that's mostly a quote by someone else, that's not the greatest thing for DYK. Surely she's done some exciting things that can be turned into a hook? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Thriley and Drmies: Would this work as an alt? ALT1 ... that when she was called to appear in her first film, Milena Smit was working as a hotel receptionist? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
If an active version is preferred, ALT1 could also be rewritten as ALT1a ... that Milena Smit was working as a hotel receptionist when she was called to appear in her first film? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer it to be something a bit more related to her film work. Currently thinking of another alt. Thriley (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that would be allowed under DYK guidelines, which require hooks about works of fiction (for example films) to have a real-world connection. Since that's technically a plot point I don't think it would meet the guideline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Thriley, Drmies, and Theleekycauldron: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I mean, I ain't really involved in this, I'm just trying to get y'all talking—but yes, nlh5 is correct that the hook probably wouldn't fly under dyk guidelines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thriley, please see this. More copyedits are necessary. The next sentence has an erroneous comma. And the "first film" in the hook--isn't that actually her fifth or so? Do you mean "feature film" or some such thing? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What about this hook? ALT2 “That in the Pedro Almodóvar film Parallel Mothers, Milena Smit and Penélope Cruz play pregnant women who give birth on the same day?” Thriley (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Is this hook acceptable under the guidelines? Thriley (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Thriley: I'll ping BlueMoonset here in case I'm wrong, but I'm going to say no, it isn't. My reasoning here is that if the hook were read as plaintext, without any bolding or linking, it would be read as pretty much only interesting as it concerns the plot. The hook should concern Smit's life; if it concerns her work as an actress, only stating her role and not anything about production doesn't make the hook out-of-universe. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg theleekycauldron, I was taking a look at the ALT1 hook and its sources, and the second Biography sentence is basically copied from Esquire—the Google translate version, at any rate. That's a problem. Another problem is that the source doesn't actually say that she was working as a hotel receptionist when she got the call, just that it was "one of these jobs", referring back to the four in the previous sentence, none of which were hotel receptionist. The article also needs a bit of copyediting. I don't think that either of the plot-based hooks should be used, and as Drmies notes, "first film" is not accurate, since it's Cross the Line that's in the source, which appears to be her fifth film. We could only use "first feature film" if the previous four in her filmography were all short films (which would need to be clearly sourced). Perhaps an angle for the information in ALT1 would be to say she was working in whatever job it was when she was cast in Cross the Line, for which she was nominated as best new actress in the Goya Awards. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Here’s an article that states she was working as a receptionist two years before she was hired to work on Parallel Mothers:[13] Does it appear reliable? Thriley (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Shepherds' Crusade (1320)

  • Reviewed: Georg Von Peuerbach (article)
  • Comment: Article edited in my sandbox from Oct 22 -Nov 5, moved to mainspace on Nov 12.

5x expanded by Sahara (talk). Nominated by HARA0201 (talk) at 19:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Sorry, but this article isn't eligible, it's been in mainspace since 2007, which means it would need to be x5 expanded, and you have only expanded it x2 from its existing size of around 3k characters to 6k. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand that but I was only allowed to add 500 words to the articleHARA0201 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC).

  • We will let you add more. But how will your teacher complain if you do? Let us know if you are willing to add 4500 characters to it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 24[edit]

Albruna

5x expanded by Berig (talk). Self-nominated at 14:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): I started looking at this, but realised I am very much not familiar with this area and don't feel entirely confident undertaking a review. I do like the hooks and it's an intriguing subject for an article! I wanted to flag the following comments, in case they are helpful (please ignore if not!):
  • I don't quite follow this sentence in the lead: "Moreover, it is still pointed out that the emendation Albruna agrees with the names of other Germanic wise women."
  • Should "instriptions" (before the Drusus heading) be "inscriptions"?
  • Should the names of scholars be wikilinked, where there is a page for the author (e.g. Simek)?
  • What does mss mean, and could this be explained when it is first referenced?
  • The second paragraph of the Aurinia section has two sentences starting with "However" in a row, which is a bit awkward to read.
Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Chocmilk03, thank you! Very good feedback! I have changed the text per your suggestions, and I hope that you find the text in the lead improved.–Berig (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm also not conducting a review at this time, but I just wanted to comment on the QPQ requirement. @Berig:, are you aware of the QPQ requirement in WP:DYKCRIT (specifically, #5)? I see that as of two days ago, you just reached five DYK credits, so it appears that you are no longer exempt. Are you intending to conduct a DYK review soon? Feel free to reach out if you need help or advice. Edge3 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been vaguely aware of it, and a few days ago, I had a try at my first review: Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Reiter.―Berig (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that a QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 17 November 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.

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)

Articles created/expanded on October 28[edit]

Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia

Created by 2004ana (talk). Nominated by Paradise Chronicle (talk) at 10:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Alternative hook if you'd like:
ALT2: ... that in Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia, initiated by two disabled voters who said they were discriminated against in a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referenda?
Right at 200 characters and has both elements that you'd like to keep. Others are possible but tricky to figure out. Referendums/referenda are interchangeable. Urve (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT3:... that in the judgement of Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia on voters' rights for the disabled in a referendum on gay marriage, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referendums? same as above
  • ALT2 is the best IMO. It humanizes the facts in a way that the other hooks do not. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

gatoclassThen let's go with ALT2.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, I edited ALT2 for accuracy, please check that the change is acceptable to you, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, there is an uncited paragraph in "The court's decision" section. Gatoclass (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I have struck ALT2 as I've realized it's problematic. Instead proposing the following:

Let's go with your proposition. And I have sourced the uncited paragraph.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed that there's another unsourced sentence at the top of the "Background" section, could you fix that too please? Gatoclass (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed on article and ALT4. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Gatoclass I have sourced the phrase in the background sections.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks PC. Please note that I have verified all aspects of this nomination, but can't verify ALT4 as I supplied it, so we just need somebody to verify ALT4, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

David Whiting

  • Reviewed: Ecem Güzel
  • Comment: long article, welcome to propose other hooks

Moved to mainspace by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 05:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Very interesting article and quite the star-studded life—and the worst case of oneitis I've ever heard. Poor Miles. Meets newness and length requirements easily, QPQ done. Earwig brings up the two most-cited sources as potential copyvios. To be expected, since they're cited almost 20 times each, and since the vast majority of the matches concern long quotes I'm willing to overlook it, but can we add more citations throughout the paragraphs? Particularly with "Conflict with Miles and Reynolds", there's four citations crammed at the end of the section. I think we should cite each after the corresponding sentences, especially where there's a direct quotation. Also for ALT0 we need a citation at the ends of the sentences for "Golden Boy" and "Whiz Kid". Otherwise nice read, and good use of sources. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 29[edit]

Margaret de Neville

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Its long enough and new and lots of good refs - including the hook fact. It documents a notable woman from the 14th century and there were not many of those. There is no image, its well written and I offer an alternative phrasing of the hook, but its up to someone else to decide if its ok. No evidence of close paraphrasing I could see. Nice addition. well done Victuallers (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Reopening this because I think the hook is misleading, as according to the source it was usual for women of the nobility, like Neville, to sign with their own names. Gatoclass (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: I don't think most will know that, so maybe we go with ALT1 or some variation on it? We don't need to say it's unusual if we phrase it that way theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, the problem with both hooks is that they imply that there was something out-of-the-ordinary in a woman signing something in her own name in that era, whereas the source indicates that was normal practice for women of the nobility. So the hooks are misleading. Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Was it usual for women in the fourteenth century to sign with their own name ... no. Is is usual for women in the 21st century to sign with just their first name? No. So "did you know that unusually Canada's head of state signs documents with just her first name and an R for Regina?" (Someone shouts) "BUT all British Queens do that!!" (Someone shouts) "That implies that it was unusual for Queens to sign with just their first name." No it doesnt. I think @Gatoclass: is reading the source and then saying that the hook doesnt explain every piece of information in the source... which obviously it doesnt. Its unusual that "a woman" is doing this at all. It WAS unusual for women in the fourteenth century to sign and if they did then they did not usually use just their own name. Its a fact - its unusual. Did You know that women did not sign their own names on documents in the 14th century? No I didnt. That is something that Lajmmoore wrote about and now I know. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello Gatoclass all so the part of the source I was using is this, which is talking about signatures for charitable donation "Although most of the widows declare themselves to be the wife of their late husband, or their father's daughter, others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names, such as 'domina Margareta de Longvl' and 'don-ýina Margareta de Nevill' (the same person). The majority of widows declare that their marital status and their power to act, using a variety of phrases, including 'in pura viduitate', 'in pura viduitate mea et ligia potestate', and 'in viduitate mea propria et potestate legitima' ..." and I read that as it was more usual for (noble) women to use a signature that described them as "wife of, etc..." I read the passage as Legg using Margaret de Neville as an unusual example. Legg is talking about the Coucher Book signatures specifically, but I still think they are marking out unusual practice. In terms of the hook, I wonder whether changing 'woman' to 'literate woman' might work? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't work just to add "literate". And your reading of the text just amounts to an unsupported assumption on your part. Because while the text could admittedly be less ambiguous, the statement that others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names does not in any way suggest that it was rare or unusual for a member of the nobility to give their name, it only states that members of the nobility as a class were inclined to give their names. So there isn't sufficient support in that statement for a hook which implies that Neville's act was in any way unusual for a member of her class. The hook makes Neville sound like some sort of proto-feminist who boldly challenged the system, when the underlying source only indicates that either her entire class did the same thing, or at least that it was an accepted practice for members of the nobility. So I still think that either the hook needs to be substantially reworked to more closely reflect the source, or a new hook be found. Gatoclass (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

James van Riemsdyk

James van Riemsdyk in 2011
James van Riemsdyk in 2011

Improved to Good Article status by GhostRiver (talk). Self-nominated at 04:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

  • Sorry, but I've never seen sentences starting with a lower case letter before, surely it should be "Van Riemsdyk" at the start of a sentence, not "van Riemsdyk"? Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough (GA promoted on October 30), definitely long enough, neutrally written, and well sourced. No issues detected by Earwig. Both hooks are interesting and verified to given sources which are cited in the article. For DYK purposes, consider duplicating ref #93 at the end of the hook sentence (like "... deflected off of his face into the net.[93]" Strong preference for the first hook (puck bouncing off his face). QPQ done. Image is compatibly licensed and clear at 100px, but it is not used in the article, which is required. DanCherek (talk) 04:42, 18 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:
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)

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.

Articles created/expanded on November 1[edit]

Tina Stege

Tina Stege
Tina Stege
  • ... that Tina Stege (pictured) who lead the High Ambition Coalition at COP26 is from the endangered Marshall Islands? Source: is here
    • ALT1: ... that ...have a go? 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)

Created by Roundtheworld (talk) and FlyingFoxBoi (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 16:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough. Two correct writers are credited. The article is fully referenced. No copyvio detected. There is a bit of biased POV pushing in Wikipedia voice: "most vulnerable to climate change". This will be something our subject is saying no doubt. And this idea is also reflected in the hook with "endangered". The hook content is referenced and confirmed by the Guardian, apart from the "endangered" bit, which opinion is attributed to Tina Stege. So I suggest that "endangered" is taken out of the hook, or it is reworded so it is clear she is saying that. Hook alt1 is unsuitable as it does not link the article and I cannot tell what it is trying to say in relation to the subject. I can confirm image is CC-BY-3.0 as derived from the video with CC-BY-3.0 license. However I would suggest that a different image is selected from the video, perhaps near the end where the microphone is not obscuring her chin. QPQ is done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for the review Graeme - I have recut a new image. Surprised that "endangered" wasn't referenced. I'm not sure it is just her opinion -"Projected sea level rise would mean 40% of the buildings in the Marshall Islands’ capital of Majuro would be permanently flooded and entire islands would disappear, potentially costing the Pacific country its status as a nation, according to a devastating new report from the World Bank." is a quote from the reference I have added to balance the idea that "endangered" might by pov. Victuallers (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This new picture is better. Thanks for the screen grab. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on November 2[edit]

Grace Meigs Crowder

  • Comment: This is my third DYK nomination, I have not reviewed another article.

Created by DferDaisy (talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @DferDaisy: This article is about 3300 bytes, and was nominated for DYK shortly after creation, satisfying date and length criteria. There is a factual error, as the article states she was interred in Keokuk, Illinois, but the source says she died in Chicago, Illinois and was interred in Keokuk, Iowa. I am assuming good faith for a few references I cannot access (for example, ref 15 - The National Humane Review), which for me gives a landing page for the document, instead of an inside view). Otherwise, everything is properly sourced and there are no copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns (Earwig cites 3 potential problems, but they are not an issue here.) QPQ not required.
  • Regarding the hooks, ALT0 is incorrect as stated, as it reads as if the study was conducted in the early 1900s by Meigs Crowder, whereas she published it in 1917 based on studies from that period. It'll need minor alteration. ALT1 is fine and sourced. I would prefer to promote an amended ALT0.
  • A minor quibble, though not an issue for DYK: please add page numbers for cited sources. If online access is eliminated from the sources, it'll force anyone investigating those sources to wade through too many pages to find the desired detail. You can do so using {{rp}} as follows for a detail on page 25 of "yoursource": <ref name="yoursource" />{{rp|25}}. Mindmatrix 22:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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]

Sidetalk

Logo of Sidetalk
Logo of Sidetalk

Created by Bait30 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

Symbol delete vote.svg Not long enough ... 1,300 characters and change of prose. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
...huh? I'm getting 1,600+... am I missing something? Pamzeis (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Daniel Case, DYKcheck returns 1637 prose characters. Please revisit your review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It is over 1,500 characters if we count the spaces, yes. The rules aren't clear on whether we count spaces or not ... I don't think we should. But I think I've alienated the nominator, so someone else can do this. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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 woman named 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)

Global Methodist Church

  • ... that the Global Methodist Church is part of a planned divorce over marriage? Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([14])
    • ALT1: ... that the Global Methodist Church is expected to separate from the United Methodist Church? Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([15])

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): I like the clever wordplay of the first hook. Thoughts on replacing "planned" with "proposed" – resulting in "proposed divorce over marriage" – to get a little more subtle wordplay on marriage proposal? DanCherek (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg while the article is over 1,500 prose characters, I'm going to be a stickler and say that this is still a stub. Around half the article is in the lead, and much of the lead contains information not reflected in the body. I reassessed and stub-tagged the article—that'll need to be cleared before I move ahead with the review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, while the things you mentioned are not generally relevant to identifying an article as a stub, I have expanded the article accordingly and information from the lede to the body. Let me know if you find it sufficient or if you want more before considering the article a suitable "start" class. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 4[edit]

Maw Htun Aung

Created by Htanaungg (talk). Self-nominated at 07:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

I don't see what's so surprising about this. The article doesn't suggest in any way that there would have been any expectation of him running on the NLD line, or that he had previously been involved in the NLD. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 5[edit]

The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 10:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC).

  • One regular hook and one "quirky" hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Started review. Alex2006 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 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 Nice Article about an Encyclopedia. The article is new enough and long enough. Earwig gives no obvious plagiarism (the high value depends on the table of contents and the name of the encyclopedia). It is well referenced, AGF on the not accessible sources. There is no picture. The two hooks are interesting and cited in the article (I prefer the quirky one :-)). Waiting for the QPQ... Alex2006 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: added qpq. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Blanc

  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 23:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): this specific article, and its creation by proxy for a banned editor, is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Gerda Arendt proxying article creation for community-banned user LouisAlain, which has also raised questions about sourcing issues similar to the issues that caused the editor to be banned in the first place. I think the AN discussion needs to come to a conclusion before this can be considered for DYK, and also that any DYK review look very seriously at the sourcing issues (claims of unreliable self-published sources and of sources not verifying the claims they were used to source) discussed at the AN thread. Probably this is going to require that the reviewer be fluent in French. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    I removed LouisAlain from the credits because of concerns, because of me taking full responsibility, and because he never cared about them anyway. The thread was closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Note that the AN discussion has been closed and the issues have been resolved, so there is no more issue here. As for the article itself, the article meets DYK requirements, and close paraphrasing was not detected. A QPQ is still pending. My main issue is the hook; frankly, it does not appeal to a broad audience. Duruflé doesn't appear to be a well-known figure (indeed, this pageviews check shows that her English article has had less than 200 total pageviews over the past 30 days, while her French article has only been viewed 5 times during that same period), and given that the hook is dependent on the connection to her, it's just not working here. Looking at the article, unfortunately I couldn't see any information that would work as a broadly-interesting hook, so unless the article is expanded further and new interesting information is added to the article, I can't see this working out on DYK sadly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There was an edit conflict when the above review was published. here is my review which was written at the same time. Storye book (talk) 11:33, 17 November 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 - ?
Overall: Symbol question.svg Another good one from Gerda - thank you. Cathedral organists always knock me out, because the cathedral is the pipe organ's soundbox, so they are playing the building - every stone feels it. So this guy deserves an article. The initial question by David Eppstein has now been resolved. All that remains to complete this nom is the QPQ. Storye book (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I would not normally contest a review, and I accept that the above review by Narutolovehinata5 gets priority in the normal DYK process. However I don't agree that the number of online hits received by an organ teacher is a judge of their value or ability. If Mme Durufle's pupil Frédéric Blanc has achieved the position of titular organist at Notre Dame, then as I understand it he is the equivalent of a top film star in the movie business. A cathedral organist has great musical power in the building and in the city, and Notre Dame is one of the greatest cathedrals in the world - with good acoustics to boot. Many subjects covered at DYK appeal to a particular audience as opposed to a general one, and that aspect does not disqualify a DYK nomination. That is why DYK hooks cover such a variety of subjects - something for everyone, eh? I don't think the article is unacceptable unless "expanded further and new interesting information is added" - the article is solidly based, and tells us who the subject is, why he is notable, and what he has achieved. Storye book (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Storye book: The issue here is that the Notre Dame mentioned in the hook is not the Notre Dame that most people know (i.e. the one that's currently being rebuilt), but a far less famous one that also happens to be in Paris. Had it been the case that he was the organist for the Notre Dame Cathedral (the famous one), I would have actually approved the hook. The issue here is that the Notre Dame mentioned here is a much more obscure one and not the internationally-famous one (note that Notre Dame is a fairly common name for Catholic churches around the world). As for the fame part, Duruflé's obscurity would have been a non-issue had it been the case that Blanc was the organist of the Notre Dame Cathedral and not the one mentioned in this hook, but given that he was actually the organist of a less well-known church, the hook's interestingness is now reliant on the Duruflé connection, and the connection there doesn't make for a broadly interesting hook in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: OK, fair enough, I won't argue with that. In that case, what about a new hook about the U.S. masterclasses, in which a mention of some of the university venues should pick up some hits. Taken together, I think his achievements are still interesting and notable. I would very much like to hear his playing of Charles-Marie Widor in the Notre-Dame d'Auteuil - pity we can't put the sound of that in the hook. @Gerda Arendt: Storye book (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I have some reservations on if such hooks are truly interesting to a broad audience, but I'm open to such a hook if there's really nothing else that could be found about him. If such a hook is to be written, I would suggest focusing on Stanford University specifically since that one's probably the most famous among all the universities mentioned in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I still have reservations if this is broadly interesting, but it appears to be the best option we have at this point, and personally I feel that it's still a better hook than the original. I would however suggest that the hook be slightly revised in some way to clarify that the Notre Dame in question isn't the Cathedral (although admittedly the ambiguity could potentially "trick" readers into checking the article, and by "trick" I mean this in a positive way). I'd like to hear Gerda's thoughts first before approving it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I prefer ALT1 to ALTa, the qpq is not done, I have this on the back of my mind with ALTs, but have first an article to write. Please wait until later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I have struck out ALTs 0 and 1a to clarify your choice for admin. Please feel free to un-strike those ALTs if you wish. Storye book (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Back. You can probably imagine that I didn't invest much time into thoughts about an article endangered from the start. He is exceptional for improvisation, for having published the memoir of Maurice Duruflé, for having published the improvisations of a colleague (at the Cathedral), on top of being organist at the church which has an organ by the same legendary organ builder as the Cathedral. Madame D. is underrated and would profit more from exposure than her famous husband. If we picture the organ, readers should see at a glance that it isn't the Cathedral's.
Organ of Notre-Dame d'Auteuil
Organ of Notre-Dame d'Auteuil
  • Comment: Gerda Arendt Narutolovehinata5. Please note that Narutolovehinata5 has priority by virtue of posting the first review. But I would like to comment, if I may (re ALT3), that use of Mme Duruflé in a hook would be fine if her article were fine - and it's not, and we have let her down. Her article needs re-writing for neutrality, and it needs citations throughout. The truth of her article is not questioned, and the quality of Mme Duruflé's work is not questioned - but when the article is linked in a hook but is so weakly written, that weakens the reader's respect for her pupil Blanc. So if you want to retain the hook which mentions her, please could you kindly correct her article for neutrality and cite all the paragraphs? Sorry to ask you to do so much when you are so busy, but I think that both she and Blanc are worth the effort. I would attempt it myself, but I cannot speak the required languages, to find and use the right citations.
  • Re ALT2: If we can't have the Mme Duruflé article rescued, then I think ALT2 is a very good hook. I think that people in general don't realise how valuable a reconstruction of improvisation can be. Suppose we lost all recordings of jazz, and only had the basic dots written down? How dull and pointless. Or if we lost all recordings of guitar riffs? But what infuriates me most is the way in which we have lost the Arab inflections and melismas from what we now call plainsong - the empty shell of the improvisation which once existed there. We still have it in sung Islamic prayer, of course, but Europe ignores that (apart from flamenco). So yes, three cheers for Blanc's resurrection of improvisations, and let's hear about it. Just my opinion, which carries no weight, of course. Storye book (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have edited the organ pipes picture to make it lighter, so it works better in a thumbnail. Please see above. Please use it or delete it as you wish. Storye book (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The issue here, and honestly this has been a long-running concern with Gerda's hooks for a while now, is that I'm not convinced that any of these hooks meet the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion. I understand both of you are classical music fans and your opinion is respected, but it has to be remembered that at DYK we write for a wide audience, not just for classical fans. We write and review hooks that are meant not just to appeal to ourselves but to those unfamiliar with the subjects or field in question. We need to ensure that if we write hooks about those involved in classical music, the hooks need to be hooks that will make even a disinterested person care about the subject. I didn't want to bring up pageviews again, but it's been noted a few times by other editors at WT:DYK that Gerda's classical music hooks tend to be among the least-viewed in a set if not the least-viewed. While pageviews aren't everything, something probably does need to change here given that it's been a concern for a while now and some editors (not just me) have expressed reservations about the interestingness of said hooks. Among the two proposals, I think ALT2 is marginally the best option, but the issue, again, is that it seems to be dependent on a connection to a person who apparently just isn't that recognizable of a name. Usually these kind of hooks are interesting and hooky provided that the link is to a recognizable name, but that isn't the case here. DYK hooks are supposed to appeal to the broadest audiences, not the nichest, and that's not what I'm seeing among the proposals made here thus far (note that if we have to go with ALT2, Pierre Cochereau needs a ton of work first as it's almost entirely unreferenced). I'll be honest: I'm starting to lean towards the article just not simply being meant for DYK, and perhaps this is something we need to take in mind, that not every article is meant to be, either because it can't be reasonably expanded to standards or there's just not any suitable material. And really, there's no shame in writing articles that don't make it to DYK, because at the end of the day, our main goal is to expand the encyclopedia and not 12-24 hours of fame. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Kindly ignore Cochereau for a moment: that a person writes down what another person improvised should - imho - be interesting for some broad audience (which will never everybody, - an estimated 3/4 of our DYK hooks leave me cold.) Now the name is Cochereau, Cathedral organist at Notre-Dame and responsible for the organ's modifications. Let's tell people he's there (and yes, improve his article). If needed we could add his function to a hook, but - back to the beginning - the name of who improvised is rather less important. I don't care about page views (or would write about sex and crime), nor about fame, but I like to make facts known that were not known before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case, then perhaps the hook could be rewritten as something like: ... that Frédéric Blanc published the reconstruction of improvisations by Pierre Cochereau, a former titular organist at the Notre-Dame de Paris? Personally I think the hook could work provided that Cochereau being a titular organist at the Notre Dame is made clear, since I think that would raise enough eyebrows to make the hook more broadly interesting. Mentioning Cochereau by himself without context makes the hook less appealing IMHO. The exact wording of "Notre-Dame de Paris" could also be subject to change as I wonder if saying some form of "Notre-Dame Cathedral" would avoid confusion and make it clear that it's the cathedral and not the namesake where Cochereau played at. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
While I see your point, it gives more words in the hook to Cochereau than Blanc, while I tried to explain that the fact is interesting per se, - it's a special skill to remember what someone else improvised, when there is no written anything. - How is that not interesting, regardless who someone else is? - Bedtime. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that Frédéric Blanc, titular organist at the Cavaillé-Coll organ (pictured) of Notre-Dame d'Auteuil in Paris, published Maurice Duruflé' memoirs and writings?
ALT5: ... that Frédéric Blanc won the Paris international organ competition for improvisation, and then became titular organist at the Cavaillé-Coll organ (pictured) of Notre-Dame d'Auteuil in Paris?
He came from Southern France, and made it to the capital. Avoiding the biographies (which should be expanded, and articles on the competitions added, - I wish I could ask LouisAlain. May rudimentary French is not sufficient). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • While not being the prior reviewer here, and knowing that my comment makes no weight, I would like to say that I think that ALTs 4 and 5 are as good as any, and that I would have passed them both as a reviewer. Storye book (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I really think I should take issue with the above comments regarding your judgemental response to the subject matter and significance of Gerda's articles and of her suggested hooks. That was quite out of order. As I understand it, Wikipedia is not here to make value-judgements as to subject matter.
  • Classical music is not a niche subject. It is a major subject which is appreciated worldwide, and certainly a valid subject both for Wikipedia articles in general, and for DYK. No subject is banned from DYK, unless (if I understand it correctly) it would seriously damage the future existence of Wikipedia in some catastrophic way - for example unless it would embroil Wikipedia in a political controversy or legal action. If you look at the October 2021 batch of DYK hooks here, you will see a brave variety of subjects, many of which might not grab the interest of the common herd, your good self, or me either. But they will all grab at least a few hundred.
  • It is fair to say that we want some hooks that are crowd-pleasers. But we also want something for everybody - WP's own article collection is supposed to be something for everybody, anyway. If we are reviewing on DYK, we need to consider everybody, not just the majority-crowd-pleaser subjects. If we really went for that common-herd-pleasing quality, we would be presenting a scandal-rag with nude photographs, ideally bearing the titles and faces of world leaders.
  • When I glance through the above October DYK archive, I see many subjects which I have never taken an interest in, or that I do not really understand. But I am intelligent enough, and broad-minded enough, to give them all a go - because that's what you need to be, to be a DYK reviewer. I will never understand baseball or American football, but it makes great photographs that we can all enjoy. I will never understand nuclear physics, but there are plenty of things you can do with that, that will grab attention (sadly).
  • Open your mind, my friend. Do not belittle, demean or diminish the years of intensive hard work and valuable achievements of our DYK nominators, just because you don't get their subject. It is good for us all to make the effort, and that is one of the jobs of DYK - to attract attention to something new. For example, when I first came here 17 years ago, I had no interest whatsoever in the type of articles that railway enthusiasts write and enjoy. But I have made the effort to read their stuff, visit some of their stations, communicate with some of them, and finally to write an article about a rail engineer. Branching out is good for you, and more importantly - mutual respect is good for Wikipedia, and that includes our public face on DYK. Storye book (talk)
    Note that I never suggested at any point that classical music hooks are inherently uninteresting; in fact interesting hooks about the subject can and have been proposed multiple times in the past with great results. In fact, Gerda and others with the same interest have produced a number of excellent hooks over the years. It's just that I believe that we can do better than what has been proposed here so far. With that said, I think ALT5 is a decent enough hook, and if both you and Gerda are okay with it, I'll approve it (although I think it would be good to mention what year he won the competition for clarity's sake). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It's 202 characters without pictured so it wouldn't be allowed under the rules. Maybe shorten it further? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be rewritten as ALT5b ... that Frédéric Blanc won the Paris international organ competition for improvisation in 1997, and then became titular organist at the Notre-Dame d'Auteuil in Paris (organ pictured)? The original ALT5 was already on the long side, and adding the year would put it in the 190s character range, which while technically acceptable may be too long for comfort. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
No, sorry (and I only added the year to please you). The competition is for organ, with an improvisation prize. The prize was 1997, and the post 1999, not immediately, that's why I tried "afterwards". The organ builder is The organ builder (perhaps in the world, surely not only in France), showing that in the caption then.
Cavaillé-Coll organ of Notre-Dame d'Auteuil
Cavaillé-Coll organ of Notre-Dame d'Auteuil
ALT5c ... that Frédéric Blanc won the prize for improvisation at the Paris international organ competition in 1997, and became titular organist at Notre-Dame d'Auteuil in Paris (organ pictured)?
Noted. @Storye book: Are you okay with ALT5c? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 7[edit]

Mimi Fawaz

Created by Ampimd (talk). Self-nominated at 14:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow, but I'm not sure if the hook as currently written is broadly appealing (for example, it wasn't clear from the hook that the CAF Awards are an association football awards ceremony), so a revision may be necessary here. In addition, perhaps alternate hooks about her journalism career could also be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrea-Mae Zepeda

  • Reviewed: TBA

Created by Bahnfrend (talk). Self-nominated at 05:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article meets DYK requirements and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ is still needed. I like ALT1 the best, but the problem is that the sentence discussing it currently has a citation needed tag. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 10[edit]

Articles created/expanded on November 11[edit]

Wreathed hornbill

Male wreathed hornbill
Male wreathed hornbill

5x expanded by Kelseyjaclynwilson (talk) and BhagyaMani (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 12:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - no
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg This is a nice article, which is new enough, long enough and well sourced. I am taking the offline sources in good faith. However, I have an issue with the hook which is not directly supported by the source. The source says that the two tribes hunt the bird for bushmeat and decorate their headgear and houses with its feathers and beaks. In another place it just says that "the gizzard of the hornbill was used in some local medicines for curing stomach disorders," but nowhere is this stated as a belief of those two tribes. So it needs to be amended to reflect the source. Alternatively there are some "fascinating facts" at the Oakland Zoo source that could be used, noting that they use a different English name, but the same Latin one. That name, Malayan wreathed hornbill, should perhaps be included in the lede. Also I wonder if the existing alternative name should just be bar-pouched hornbill as per the same website? Bermicourt (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Bermicourt! Re the gizzard : true is that it is not stated in any source that the local people believe .., but only that they use it for curing stomach problems. So I wonder whether the hook should / can be changed to either a) that they use it as medicine, or b) to a different hook altogether, e.g. something about the bird itself : that it flies up to some 25 km from its breeding site in search of favoured fruits, much farther than any other hornbill species. I didn't add this info yet, but can do if you think it worthwhile?
Re the name "Malayan wreathed hornbill" : Blanford (1889) seems to have been the first and only one who used this name, but I haven't seen this in any other publication yet. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks also to @Casliber: for DYK nominating this page!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think this article is worthy of a DYK, but you need to come up with one or two alternative hooks. I'm sure there's plenty of material for that - it's an interesting bird! Bermicourt (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 12[edit]

Ireland's Eye

Further hooks possible, notably on the flora and fauna.x 5x expanded by SeoR (talk). Self-nominated at 00:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC).

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)

Silicification

Opal embedded in jasper
Opal embedded in jasper

Moved to mainspace by Jasminesongy (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 21:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC).

Nadjamuddin Daeng Malewa

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/William A. Massingill
  • Comment: Note: technically the source doesn't say that he was outside SoEI explicitly, but Jakarta is pretty obviously not within the SoEI. Kinda like saying "he was not in the USA" when the source says "he was in Beijing".

Moved to mainspace by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 12:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on November 13[edit]

1977 Yili fire

  • ... that the 1977 Yili fire, the deadliest since the founding of the People's Republic of China, was caused by a special jumping firecracker? Source: "“地老鼠”带着哨音钻进了花圈堆，一股火苗很快蹿了出来." trans. the "ground rat" sprang into the pile of wreaths with a whistle, and very quickly, a fire appeared. [19]"为共和国建国以来单次伤亡最多的火灾事故." trans: the deadliest fire since the founding of the PRC [20] "腾空而起飞" trans: jumped and flew (from description of this type of firecracker)[21]

Created by Gorden 2211 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Harriet Amelia Folsom

Amelia Folsom
Amelia Folsom

Created/expanded by Cjstirlbyu (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Not a review but just a request to sort out her common name. Is it Harriet Amelia Folsom or Amelia Folsom? The article title should show the common name. The name shown in the infobox should match the article title. Schwede66 18:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Oblique subduction

Moved to mainspace by LklAndy (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 03:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

Galac-tac

  • ... that Galac-tac, a play-by-web game today, first began 39 years ago in 1982 as a play-by-mail game? Chris Milliken (March–April 1990). "A Review of Galac-Tac". Paper Mayhem. No. 41. p. 18; Daniel A. Dias (May–June 1984). "Featured Review: Galac-Tac". Paper Mayhem. No. 6. p. 3; White, Genny (March 2014). "Galac-Tac Encounters of the PBM Kind: Galac-tac Returns" (PDF). Suspense & Decision. No. 5. Suspense-and-Decision.net. p. 3.
    • ALT1: ... that Galac-tac, launched in 1982 as a play-by-mail game, is still available today for play on the web? Chris Milliken (March–April 1990). "A Review of Galac-Tac". Paper Mayhem. No. 41. p. 18; Daniel A. Dias (May–June 1984). "Featured Review: Galac-Tac". Paper Mayhem. No. 6. p. 3; White, Genny (March 2014). "Galac-Tac Encounters of the PBM Kind: Galac-tac Returns" (PDF). Suspense & Decision. No. 5. Suspense-and-Decision.net. p. 3.
  • Reviewed: Review pending

Created by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough. I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. While everything else checks out, a QPQ is needed. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you SL93. I've done a review on the Borocera cajani nomination for QPQ. Appreciate the review! Airborne84 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Chile Ridge

  • ... that the Chile Ridge has a slab window, a gap where the asthenosphere is thin? Source: "A Review on Forearc Ophiolite Obduction, Adakite-Like Generation, and Slab Window Development at the Chile Triple Junction Area: Uniformitarian Framework for Spreading-Ridge Subduction" [23]

5x expanded by Candyyeung168 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 00:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

H. R. C. Pettigrew

  • ... that colonel Hugh Pettigrew, formerly of the Gordon Highlanders, observed that troops that thought that the Scottish Highlands resembled Waziristan on India's North West Frontier, were of little use to anyone?
    • ALT1: ... that ...?

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 18:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

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).

Norma Kuhling

  • ... that Norma Kuhling's character in Fourteen was described by a film critic as "a Greta Gerwig spin on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl"? Source: "Those two leads are quietly powerful in their own ways, with Kuhling adding layers and history to what seems like a Greta Gerwig spin on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl..." [24]

Created by DanCherek (talk). Self-nominated at 18:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC).

Lukman Hakim

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 15:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC).

Woody (Toy Story)

5x expanded by Kaleeb18 (talk) and VladimirBoys (talk). Nominated by Kaleeb18 (talk) at 14:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Hi Kaleeb18, unfortunately I do not think this article is eligible for DYK. You'd need to have expanded the text content by 5x in length, which I am not seeing in the page history. You'll also need to resolve the many tags for additional citations and expansion in the article. Your best bet would be to get it to good article status and renominate then. See the DYK rules for more details. PS: I removed the image from this nomination, fair use (ie. copyrighted) images are permitted in articles only - Dumelow (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok that's fine if it can't be nominated and thanks for the suggestion. I'm also wondering what 5x or five fold means like how do I know if an article has been expanded 5 fold. Kaleeb18 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kaleeb18, no worries and good luck with the article. The expansion is based on the number of characters (ie. letters, spaces etc.) in the article before you started work on it and the number after you've finished. You can use a script like Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck but I just copy the article text into an online character counter (there's loads of websites if you do a Google search for "character counter" or similar) - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks again. Kaleeb18 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
There's also a handy Prosesize gadget that you can install from your Wikipedia preferences. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@ClaudineChionh: is there an article describing hiw that gadget works or what it does? Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
A week before nomination, the page was 26257 characters. Now it is 15914, so it has shrunk. You would have to get to about 132000 characters to pass the 5x, so not really feasible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: yeah I forgot we removed a setion called relationships, which talked about Woody's relationship with everyone in the movie, was completely unnecessary and we got rid of 16,000 bytes by getting rid of that section. Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kaleeb18: Yes – the Prosesize link I gave earlier. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 14[edit]

River Laune Crozier

Drop plate showing a human figure
Drop plate showing a human figure
  • Reviewed: To follow

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 04:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC).

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." [26]) 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).

Theodore Conrad (criminal)

  • ... that Theodore Conrad fled after stealing $215,000 from a Cleveland bank in 1969, and successfully evaded authorities until his death in 2021? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/ohio-bank-robber-dead-massachusetts.html "The U.S. Marshals Service announced that it had found Mr. Conrad after investigators pursued a lead and discovered that he had been living under the fictitious name Thomas Randele in Lynnfield, Mass., about 16 miles north of Boston, until his death from lung cancer in May."
    • ALT1: ... that Theodore Conrad, who evaded capture for 52 years after stealing $215,000 from a bank, was believed to have been inspired by the 1968 Steve McQueen film The Thomas Crown Affair? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/ohio-bank-robber-dead-massachusetts.html A year before, Mr. Conrad had been obsessed with “The Thomas Crown Affair,” a 1968 Steve McQueen film in which a bored billionaire robs a bank to amuse himself. Mr. Conrad had told friends that he planned to rob a bank, bragging about how easy it would be, the U.S. Marshals Service said.
    • ALT2: ... that Theodore Conrad, who evaded capture for 52 years after stealing $215,000, remained a fugitive for so long that he was finally tracked down by the son of one of the original investigators? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/ohio-bank-robber-dead-massachusetts.html “'Can you pass the mashed potatoes?' Peter J. Elliott asked his father, a U.S. marshal in Cleveland, Ohio, who was thinking about the man who had pulled off one of the biggest bank robberies in the city’s history. 'When am I going to get Ted Conrad?' Mr. Elliott asked his son, a year after Theodore J. Conrad had walked off with $215,000 in cash, the equivalent of about $1.6 million today. On Friday, more than 50 years after the heist, the younger Mr. Elliott, now a U.S. marshal himself, had an answer for his father."

Created by Coretheapple (talk). Self-nominated at 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment: On further consideration I think ALT 2 may be the best of the three. Coretheapple (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 15[edit]

Dreams of Trespass

  • ... that in Fatima Mernissi's novel Dreams of Trespass, the characters see patriarchy as un-Islamic? Source: "Women like Yasmina and Fatima’s mother always disapprove of patriarchy as non-sense and un-Islamic." (Nausheen Ishaque (February 12, 2019). "Empowerment through disempowerment: Harem and the covert female resistance in Fatima Mernissi's Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood". Cultural Dynamics: 284–302.)
    • 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)

5x expanded by Vice regent (talk). Self-nominated at 14:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Music for Lovers Only

  • ... that Bobby Hackett said that Jackie Gleason's main contribution to the recording of Music for Lovers Only was that "he brought the checks"? Source: "Nevertheless, the belief that Jackie [Gleason] was just the moneyman funding the studio sessions has remained remarkably durable over the years. And the single biggest reason that perception persists is, indeed, Bobby Hackett's famous quote that Jackie's contribution to these recordings was that 'He brought the checks.'" (Gordon Anderson's liner notes for Real Gone Music's 2017 CD reissue of Music for Lovers Only)
    • ALT1: ... that despite having no formal musical education, Jackie Gleason was able to convey his musical intentions for the album Music for Lovers Only by playing them on the organ? Source: "I pick the notes out on an organ. I have a way of marking them down so [my arranger] can interpret them." ([27])
    • ALT2: ... that despite the prominence of his name on the LP, the true extent of the musically uneducated Jackie Gleason's involvement in his album Music for Lovers Only continues to be debated? Source: "Gleason's contributions to the albums remain slightly mysterious. He could neither read nor write music..." ([28])

5x expanded by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:31, 18 November 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)

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

  • I agree that the thing about the misquotation is the hookiest fact in the article, but it's clumsily phrased here. For one, the quote is not actually "could have been made by aliens" so, considering this is all about misquotation, we should either use the actual quote or clarify that it is a misquotation. Then "as though it was a real announcement" implies that it was actually, I don't know, a fake announcement? A parody? Also, essay collections don't speak: the chapter in question was written by William Edmonson. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
It's a lot of context to try squeeze into 200 characters, so, and I can't believe I'm suggesting this, why not go with a simple April Fools-style hook:
Readers can then have their expectations shattered when they click through. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a tricky hook to try write. I don't mind that suggestion -- I'm happy to field more comments about it, because it's definitely a strong one, but it does lean heavy on the contradiction even for April Fool standards. Thank you! Vaticidalprophet 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 16[edit]

Ruth Crosby Noble

  • ... that the American zoologist Ruth Crosby Noble captured 200 live Hispaniola tree frogs and 20 rhinoceros iguanas while on an expedition in Hispaniola? source: Rader, Karen A.; Cain, Victoria E. M. (2014). Life on Display: Revolutionizing U.S. Museums of Science and Natural History in the Twentieth Century. University of Chicago Press. pp. 61–62. doi:10.7208/9780226079837-004.
    • ALT1: ... that The Nature of the Beast, written by the American zoologist Ruth Crosby Noble, was described as having the "rare quality of combining entertainment with sound scientific value" source: L., A. W. (1 September 1945). "The Nature of the Beast". Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 38 (3): 454. doi:10.1093/aesa/38.3.454.

Created by AFreshStart (talk). Expanded by AleatoryPonderings, TJMSmith, Vanamonde93 and others. Self-nominated at 14:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

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

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

Jacquetta Hawkes

Jacquetta Hawkes
Jacquetta Hawkes

Improved to Good Article status by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 09:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Joe Roe I'm happy with that! Lajmmoore (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

William John Seward Webber

Victoria wearing the Koh-i-Noor
Victoria wearing the Koh-i-Noor
  • Reviewed: Thomas Guggeis
  • Comment: This article was created over about 5 months in userspace, then copied and pasted to mainspace on 16 November. As far as I am aware, Queen Victoria never wore the Koh-i-Noor set in a necklace, though she did wear it set in a brooch and in a circlet (headdress). So the necklace with the Koh-i-Noor in this sculpture is probably artistic licence.

Created by Storye book (talk). Self-nominated at 16:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Captivating storey of a life and career, meticulously referenced on plenty of fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed. The hook works, but I don't see the diamond in the image. I am willing to approve it but would like to discuss other options:
  • mention the artistic license, because I didn't know the detail of her not wearing that gem in a necklace
  • don't mention the diamond detail, focus on the jubilee, and use the second image from the gallery which show the greatness of the design better than the head detail
  • base a hook on the Warrior/Youth work which I find much more attractive as an artwork, and as an image in small size ;)
Let me know. Take that article to GA please, I think it's ready. - Graham87, can you please do the history merge for him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: Thank you for the review. Diamonds were often cut in cabochon style in the 19th century and earlier. This one was cut with a flat bottom like all cabochons, and when viewed from above, it was a large oval, about 1.5 inches long. Modern cabochons usually have a smoothly rounded surface; this one was lightly faceted but the facets don't show on the sculpture. So it looks like half an egg, I suppose. The Koh-i-Noor is the large oval at the bottom of the picture.
  • We have no specific citation for artistic licence - that is just a conclusion that we can probably make, since we have no evidence that Victoria ever had it set in a necklace. Therefore I cannot use "artistic licence" in a hook or in the article.
  • I'll have a go at a hook using a full-length Victoria, and another hook using the Warrior and Wounded Youth sculpture. I'll come back shortly with those. Storye book (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Queen Victoria by Webber
Queen Victoria by Webber
Warrior and Wounded Youth by Webber
Warrior and Wounded Youth by Webber

Ben Comeau

  • ... that Ben Comeau is not very nice about Donald Trump or Boris Johnson? Source: "Ben Comeau has taken a somewhat alternative, but for him well-known means in use to draw attention to his position ... The lyrics to the fugue, which is for soprano, alto, tenor, bass and strings, consist of variations on the phrase "Boris Johnson is a Lying Shit" ... In 2018, he composed the four-part fugue "Donald Trump is a Wanker" ([31])
  • Reviewed: Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing
  • Comment: Personally I prefer ALT1, but I suspect that might not be particularly civil or neutral for the main page, hence the "toned down" main hook

Created by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Ritchie333: Article is a new, plagiarism free, neutral, and well sourced not-stub (1633B). As for the hooks, I'm going to reject ALT0 out of hand, because Ben Comeau can take a number on that one. I'm also going to say no to ALT1, not because it's uncivil or uninteresting, but because it should be quoted—I've suggested two minor alts. A QPQ is also needed. Let me know what you think—nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Re 1a, I don't see how we know that Comeau personally thinks of Trump; these could have been works-for-hire, after all. I've been trying to come up with something catchy on this -- for example, had Comeau invited Trump to participate in a performance of the work, then we could say he told Trump to fugue himself -- but the sourcing just isn't there that I can see. In consolation, here's an enlightening bit of musical history you will want to share with friends and family:
Q: Why did Bach have so many children?
Unhide for answer
A: Because he didn't have any stops in his organ. In fact, he wore out three organs fuguing.
Thanks may be left on my talk page. EEng 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The video for "Boris Johnson is a Lying Shit" includes a description from Comeau that basically screams for people not to vote for him, and the one for "Donald Trump is a Wanker" says "As satisfying as it is to poke fun at the Orange Monster, this video on its own probably won’t do the teeniest thing to reduce the devastation inflicted by the Trump administration. I therefore want to use this platform to suggest ways we can contribute to meaningful anti-Trump resistance.". We'd need to flesh out the article with these WP:BLPPRIMARY sources for the "thinks" to be properly verifiable.
Moving on, 1a and 1b don't have as much impact or quirkiness you can get with a good hook. I suppose 1b is factually correct, but it's not "Did you know that Trump is directly connected to Russia or that a Trump resort is directly connected to Moscow? Maybe EEng can some up with something catchy. In the meantime, a "non-Trump" hook for safety:
ALT2 ... that Ben Comeau made up a fictional student of Franz Liszt so he could write a 45-minute piano sonata? Source : "I occasionally indulge in pastiche classical composition, and I once composed a 45-minute piano sonata as if by Otto Rosenberg, an imaginary pupil of Franz Liszt in the 1880s" ([32]) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lucerne School of Computer Science and Information Technology

  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

  • @Gerda Arendt: Hi, I'll review this! The article is new (created Nov 9, nominated Nov 16), size is ok, sources are ok. No images, so no problems here. Symbol question.svg My main concern that it's not so unusual for a School of CS and IT to have a program for cyber security. Maybe something can be added here - what makes the program unique or interesting? Artem.G (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

2017 United States Electoral College vote count

Created/expanded by Capisred (talk). Self-nominated at 17:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on November 17[edit]

Mabel Barltrop

Olivia (Mabel) Barltrop
Olivia (Mabel) Barltrop
  • ... that the Panacea Society believed in God the Father, God the Mother, Jesus the son and Olivia the daughter ...?Source: here
    • ALT1: ... that after dying of diabetes, the followers of Olivia waited for three days to allow her to resurrect?Source: here
  • Reviewed: Cueva de las Manos
  • Comment: Quite a large fork but much more than 1500 chars of new text

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

Empire Tract

  • ... that Herbert Hoover once farmed asparagus on the Empire Tract? Source: "Hoover Dedicates New School Named for Him". The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. 1954-08-04. p. 14. Retrieved 2021-11-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  • ALT1: ... that Herbert Hoover once farmed sugar beets on the Empire Tract? "Two Killed in Wage Dispute". Napa Journal. Napa, California. 26 May 1936. p. 1. Retrieved 17 November 2021 – via Newspapers.com.

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 23:17, 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: Red XN - The source given and the sentence it cites does not mention asparagus. Need a source on what was being farmed in 1930s, or removal of the asparagus part of the hook.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg The hook is interesting, but the source issue is preventing me from giving this the all clear. SounderBruce 05:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: That's an excellent catch, and I am grateful for it. I'd thought that they were farming asparagus, but when looking it up in more detail, I see that I was wrong (it was sugar beets). I've amended the article, and added another source about the farming history of the Delta which discusses beet farming on the island. I've also provided an alternate hook for it. jp×g 11:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Looks better now, but the hook's original sentence in the article still does not mention the type of crop, nor does its source (LA Times). SounderBruce 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No Child Left Behind (song)

Converted from a redirect by Kyle Peake (talk). Self-nominated at 07:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article as it stands consists of about 1430 bytes (excluding infobox, headers, tables, and ref markers). This is slightly too short for DYK. Nominated for DYK less than one day after conversion from redirect. QPQ completed. I'll complete the review once the article satisfies the length criterion. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for checking the length properly, I apologize for this being slightly off and I have increased it now by adding background info. I await the rest of your comments, hopefully this reaches the DYK page soon enough! K. Peake 21:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 18[edit]

WMSB (FM)

Converted from a redirect by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Myanmar–South Korea relations

Created by Htanaungg (talk). Self-nominated at 03:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

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).

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?
  • Reviewed: Forthcoming

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

Skin of the Sea

Created by Emmanuel okon269 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

  • New Enough: Red XN - This had to be nominated between November 7 and 14
  • Long Enough: Red XN - Previously it met the criterion, now it needs another 5x expansion.

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - It needs to be rewritten as it misses a verb.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg @Emmanuel okon269: The article was created by Isabelle Belato on November 6. Although it was already elligible for DYK, Isabelle didn't nominate it. The next day you further expanded it. Per WP:DYKCRIT: For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old. The article is 11 days old by now, so it needs another 5x expansion. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A Mermaid Tests Her Fate in West African-Inspired Tale Skin of the Sea". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2021-11-07.

Love Nwantiti

Created by Emmanuel okon269 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Regrettably, this article was not created within the past seven days, nor was it expanded fivefold in those seven days. Articles for DYK must be either newly created, newly expanded, or newly promoted to be Good Articles after a formal GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Schroeder

Created/expanded by Asdasdasdff (talk) and Kingoflettuce (talk). Nominated by Kingoflettuce (talk) at 15:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Rico Sasaki

Sasaki holding at outdoor performance in Ikebukuro in 2020.
Sasaki holding at outdoor performance in Ikebukuro in 2020.
  • ... that Rico Sasaki (pictured) beat 9,000 others in an audition to play Annie in a Japanese production of Annie in 2008? Source: [34] ("幼少期より歌と音楽をこよなく愛し、様々な音楽と触れ合いながら育ち、小学3年生の時に、ミュージカル「アニー」の舞台を観て感動しその舞台に立つことを夢見、そして小学校５年生の時にオーディションによりその主役の座を約9000人の応募の中から勝ち取るという、シンデレラストーリーを実現する。")
    • ALT1: ... that Rico Sasaki (pictured) started her music career after beating almost 4,000 applicants in an audition held to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the record label Teichiku Records? Source: [35] ("今年4月にスタートし国内のみならず合計3,836件の応募をいただき、大変話題になった本オーディションも、12月1日東京のビクタースタジオにおける最終審査を以って全ての日程を終了いたしました。")

Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Tinsley Island

  • ... that an all-male boating event on Tinsley Island was called the "Bohemian Grove of yachting"? Source: "Inside Society: Adams... Without Eves!". The San Francisco Examiner. San Francisco, California. 1960-08-27. p. 13.

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 10:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Parable of the drowning man

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 07:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

AAARRGH! I had meant to include this. Thanks for a usable source! Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Heisler, Steve (July 13, 2009). "The West Wing: "Take Out The Trash Day"/"Take This Sabbath Day"". The A. V. Club. Retrieved November 18, 2021. Like in the pilot when Bartlet comes in right at the end to talk some sense into the religious nuts, this was the opposite: the pastor tells Bartlet that killing is a sin, and that there have been plenty of ways Bartlet could have gotten out of this case. God gave him multiple outs, he ignored them, and now Bartlet just sits there, tormented.

Bull Island (California)

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 07:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Kimball Island

  • ... that in 2000, the Sacramento County Policy Planning Commission decided that humans would never be allowed to live on Kimball Island again? Source: "Kimball Island to become wetland habitat". The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, California. 2000-06-01. p. 80. Retrieved 2021-11-17 – via Newspapers.com.

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 06:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

A Place Inside of Me

5x expanded by DanCherek (talk). Self-nominated at 04:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Re'quan Boyette

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

Joice Island

  • ... that Joice Island was the location of a "web of intrigue" in 1890, a failed asparagus farm in 1905, a wildlife refuge in 1950, a hunting preserve in 1965, and a pig hunt in 2017? Source: Too many to include here (check article).

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

Russ Island

  • ... that after many years of farming crops, Russ Island was deliberately flooded for farming salt? Source: URS Corporation (October 2011). "Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Land Management Plan". California Department of Fish and Game. Retrieved 26 February 2021.

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 01:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Nice work. Complete sentences technically aren't a DYK stipulation, so I'll let that pass, but the sentence should be fixed sooner or later. Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 19[edit]

Irish (game)

  • ... that Backgammon was derived from the esteemed 16th-century Scottish and English tables game of Irish and eventually superseded it?
    Source: "Irish. This game flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries; thereafter it seems to have given way to its faster paced derivative Backgammon. During its day it was esteemed among the best games at Tables." (Source: Forgeng, Jeff, Dorothy Johnston and David Cram (2003). Francis Willughby's Book of Games. Ashgate Press. ISBN 1 85928 460 4, p. 269.)
  • Reviewed: to follow shortly

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 18:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Prise d'Orange

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/G. D. Sweet Famous Players
  • Comment: There is the faintest tinge of WP:OR in alt0 because the Guardian article does not say "Prise d'Orange", but I'm aware of no other Siège d'Orange than the hitherto-considered-lost part of Prise d'Orange and the description of the narrative in the Guardian article is exactly what I'd expect based on what Prise d'Orange says. I emailed Professor Atkin to double check (not that this would necessarily cure the OR issue if nothing has been published to this effect). My prose size script gives 1108B for the last version before I started editing and 7518B for the current version.

5x expanded by AleatoryPonderings (talk). Self-nominated at 17:26, 19 November 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

  • Reviewed: to come

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

Olaf Presents

Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 10:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Elisabeth Geleerd

  • ... that Elisabeth Geleerd became one of the most influential American psychoanalysts of her time while chronically ill and raising a family? Source: Nölleke, Brigitte (14 October 2021). "Psychoanalytikerinnen in Österreich" [Psychoanalysts in Austria]. Psychoanalytikerinnen. Biografisches Lexikon (in German). Retrieved 19 November 2021.; Tartakoff, Helen (1970). "Obituary—Elisabeth Geleerd Loewenstein". International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 51 (1): 71–73.

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

Interstate H-2

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 03:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Starting this review shortly. Ktin (talk) 05:17, 19 November 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 - Pending
Overall: Symbol question.svg Article meets eligibility criteria. 5x expanded. Length criteria is met. Article is well sourced and is neutral in tone. Earwig's copyvio indicates no plagiarism. Hook is interested. It is sourced. No issues there. Would be good to have the statement used as-is in the article. Something for the nominator to consider. But, I am good with or without that. Will close this once QPQ is done. Ktin (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ktin: Added a QPQ and modified the hook and article a bit. SounderBruce 06:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 20[edit]

Special occasion holding area[edit]

The holding area has moved to its new location at the bottom of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [40]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [41].
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1056168734"