Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Contents

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
April 9 1
July 22 1
July 27 1
August 5 1
August 7 1
August 8 1
August 12 1 1
August 13 1
August 17 3
August 22 1
August 23 1
August 25 1 1
August 26 1 1
August 28 3
August 30 2
August 31 3 2
September 1 5 1
September 2 4 3
September 3 1
September 4 7 3
September 5 2
September 6 5 3
September 7 4 3
September 8 5 4
September 9 3 3
September 10 2 1
September 11 3 2
September 12 5 4
September 13 7 4
September 14 10 7
September 15 10 8
September 16 10 6
September 17 11 7
September 18 12 8
September 19 8 5
September 20 7 4
September 21 6 4
September 22 10 6
September 23 3 2
September 24 9 6
September 25 11 7
September 26 3 1
September 27 13 1
September 28 5 3
September 29 8 4
September 30 3 1
October 1 7 7
October 2 11 4
October 3 12 2
October 4 9 2
October 5 14 2
October 6 7 3
October 7 10 2
October 8 6
October 9 4
October 10 2
Total 297 138
Last updated 19:10, 10 October 2018 UTC
Current time is 19:50, 10 October 2018 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Shortcut

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).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an article[edit]

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 Save 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 Save page.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading‍—‌the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[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.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

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 (so that those hooks don't grow stale), 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 above).

Where is my hook?[edit]

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.

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]


Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

  • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
  • Hooks that have been approved are located on the approved nominations page.
  • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
  • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
  • In the prep set...
    • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
    • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
  • Back on DYK nomination page...
    • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • change |passed= to |passed=yes
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted to Prep 3", preview, and save

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 April 9[edit]

Non-science

Created by WhatamIdoing (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Starting the review.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • New enough.
  • Long enough.
  • Well-sourced, with one error in formatting (confusion with article title/work) that I've fixed.
  • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • Neutral tone.
  • The hook is properly formatted, short enough, neutral and interesting.
Symbol question.svg *User:WhatamIdoing: Do you have a QPQ please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that I have five DYK credits yet, but I reviewed Superfest International Disability Film Festival last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg By "I don't think", I assume you mean "I am positive I don't." So it's fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hello, I came by to promote this, but the article right now has a big "{{Globalize}}" template in one of its sections. This might need to be resolved first before this is approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
User:SteveMcCluskey: I removed it as undue. Wikipedia is a work in progress, everything could potentially be improved, but I don't see it as a pressing issue and if it's going to block the DYK, that's not good. The issue could potentially be addressed afterwards, although I don't see it as a problem frankly.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg It seems there are no more objections from SteveMcCluskey so I am restoring Zigzig20s' tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg The hook is decidedly not neutral as there are sources (now cited in the article) that put history (and other humanistic disciplines) within the sciences. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not really. Archeology is not history, stricto sensu. History would be the interpretation (or commentary) of archaeological discoveries. Zigzig20s (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Do you have any suggestions for alternative hooks? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the suggested hook works, as archeology is not history. It's a tool of history, like statistics or geography.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@SteveMcCluskey: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, all, I understand that there's some legitimate disagreement about classifying archaeology in this concept (i.e., a concept that separates natural sciences and similar disciplines from other knowledge-generating activities, like religion and art), because archaeology contains both science and non-science aspects, and any given researcher's work might be best described as one label or the other. Steve added information about the OECD's bureaucratic numbering system, but archaeology isn't really the important example there. The OECD's list explicitly includes the whole of humanities as one of the six areas of science and technology. This means that the OECD believes that (for their funding and statistical purposes) art and religion are "sciences". Opera and religious ceremonies are all perfectly fine in their own way, and they are perfectly legitimate Wissenschaftlich subjects – but they are not Science (in what Steve calls the English sense of the word, i.e., the only sense that's actually relevant for this article). The point of the OECD classification is that when a government gives a grant to encourage religious participation, then that should be called "science and technology research". The point of this concept is that religion is not science.
Also, as a general point, I'd like to say that a bureaucratic classification system is a weak source for deciding how one ought to organize knowledge. Epistemiology is an ancient academic subject that is not constrained by the rules written 12 years ago about how governments ought to report their research and development spending to another government agency that they hope will give them money. But if Steve really believes that's the true definition, then I'd invite him to add that definition to Science and see if he can get a consensus for it. If editors agree to re-define Science as including all of these "non-science" subjects, such as the entire list of things called "Humanities" in the OECD list, then we could merge this article away and be done with it. But if they don't – if, as I suspect they will, they insist upon defining Science as being only and exclusively systematic knowledge of a particular kind, and therefore all other knowledge is not science – then we should set the subject of this article accordingly (and probably link to Wissenschaft in the article about the OECD's FOS categories, so readers don't get so confused about religion being considered "science and technology"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: Do you have alternative suggestions for a hook then? It seems the original won't fly. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Why isn't the original acceptable? It's sourced, and it's the mainstream position. Finding "history" listed in a document about how to report government funding of "science and technology" does not actually prove that there is a general consensus that history is science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing: I'm personally fine with the hook, it's SteveMcCluskey who has issues with it. Anyway I took a look at the source given in the article, and while it suggests history is considered a non-science, the same article suggests that there's significant debate on the matter and the status of history as a science or non-science is controversial. I suppose to be on the safe side, an alternate hook is suggested here while the original hook remains under discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
        • The cited source says, "The English word “science” is primarily used about the natural sciences and other fields of research that are considered to be similar to them. Hence, political economy and sociology are counted as sciences, whereas studies of literature and history are usually not." That doesn't sound like classifying history as non-science is controversial. At minimum, it's no more controversial than the whole (English and French) idea that there is some significant difference between the study of physics and the study of morality, which some (mostly German- and Dutch-speaking) philosophers reject. It is true that some historians in the 19th century tried to re-define science to include the historians' particular style of creating knowledge, but it didn't fly. (See Nomothetic and idiographic for some of that; 'the proton always behaves thusly under these circumstances' is nomothetic knowledge, but 'this Great Man, in this time and place, behaved thusly' is idiographic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
          • My concern is that the article can be read as taking non-science as an inferior grade of "knowledge" -- or even as not being real knowledge at all. Hanssen nicely addresses this issue in his article in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The German term [Wissenschaft] has the advantage of more adequately delimiting of [sic] the type of systematic knowledge that is at stake in the conflict between science and pseudoscience. The misrepresentations of history presented by Holocaust deniers and other pseudo-historians are very similar in nature to the misrepresentations of natural science promoted by creationists and homeopaths." Unfortunately, this important concern is not addressed by the Wikipedia article Non-science, which is one of my problems with it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I think that having this article at all is the first step in addressing your concern. Step 1 in not thinking that non-science is bad information is discovering that (most) non-science is things like history and art and literature, rather than things like lies and fraud. Can you give an example of a sentence in the article that implies that non-science is inferior? I can understand reading it and learning that some non-science is inferior, but that's the parts of non-science that wouldn't be considered Wissenschaft, either. To put it another way, . WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @WhatamIdoing: It has been one month since the last major edits to the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Narutolovehinata5, I am not planning any further major changes. The concerns about Wissenschaft are orthogonal – they are, essentially, that this idea should not exist, because people ought to divide knowledge into scholarly vs non-scholarly rather than scientific vs non-scientific. I agree that often they should, but (for other purposes) they shouldn't, and more to the point, they frequently don't. I really don't think there is anything actionable in those comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As it appears we're currently stuck, I'm now requesting another uninvolved user to continue this review. Fresh minds are needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The article seems fine from a neutrality standpoint. If the reader comes away thinking that the humanities is the same as holocaust denial and homeopathy, then that's probably saying more about the reader than it is about the article. The first hook is a little bland. Could go with something like ...that no single test has yet been devised that can clearly separate science from non-science?, although with the quote given in the citation, I'm not sure it's perfectly supported by the source, but may rather be inferred from the source. If you wanted to go with something with more purposefully dry humor, could go with something like ...that non-science includes all areas of study that are not science? GMGtalk
  • I think the original hook is fine. Far from being bland, I think the concision is provocative and hence effective as a hook (it worked on me). It's true enough as a general statement and for the nuances people can read the article. More to the point, it's supported by a good source, which is all the DYK rules require. I agree with a lot of what Steve has said, but I don't think it's fair to hold up this DYK for months based on some rather nonspecific concerns that don't directly relate to the hook. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment 28/7 I came here to review this, per WT:DYK. What a Mons it's turned out to be. But, since there are now no issues with the article itself, and the major concerns seem esoteric at the best: we need to keep the hook hooky, and tie it tightly to the article. So let's remove "history" as the butt, and replace it with the more alliterative
ALT1:... that the history of science is non-science?
  • I don't suppose I can review this now can I...so ¡por vida! will it sit here for another three months. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to your proposed hook; it is accurate, and the symmetry is pleasing. I think that the hook needs to name a universally recognized scholarly field – the point, after all, is that non-science is merely a different approach to acquiring knowledge, and not what an earlier editor called 'an inferior grade of "knowledge"' – but the specific scholarly field named is not important to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol possible vote.svg I don't think the above ALT1 addresses any of the NPOV concerns. History of science is a sub-discipline of history and there is clearly ample disagreement about whether history is a science. This could be easily solved by something along the lines of "according to XYZ, history is non-science". IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Can you tell me exactly where this "ample disagreement" is documented? The article itself explicitly says (and sources) the statement that history is not a type of science, and if you use a typical modern-native-English-speaker understanding of the word "science", this is indeed the dominant view. Science uses the scientific method and scientists make progress towards better understanding of their subjects through each generation; history uses the historical method but does not necessarily result in historians knowing more than the people who lived through a given point in time. (Steve's comment above was based upon his personal interpretation of the title of a document published by the OECD.) There are informed sources that give a middling view – some aspects of history that might be fairly called science, but (many) other aspects that cannot be, with the balance of the science and non-science aspects depending upon things like whether your sub-field is recent economic history or ancient cultural history; see this one for a good explanation from a famous historian, or that the attempted classification is a mere distraction, because the only thing that matters is the division between good scholarly work and everything else, rather than the division between science and everything else – but I have found no recent reliable sources that take the view that history should be considered purely a science, using the word science in the same sense that 21st-century English speakers use that word. I therefore conclude that there is no serious disagreement on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
        • FWIW I have the same reservations as IronGargoyle. History may not be "purely a science" (emphasis mine), but to label it "non-science" will be taken to imply (much as you don't mean to) that it's uninformative. The bigger problem is that the article doesn't add much to Demarcation problem. The subject of both is the distinction between science and other pursuits of knowledge. The most distinct section is "Areas of non-science", but that's the contentious part. The list of subjects isn't referenced and, at least debatably, parts of history, linguistics, philosophy (cf mathematics), are scientific. I would merge the two articles, personally, along with Parascience as a subsection. In any case, if we're keeping a separate article, we should find a hook that won't invite questions about its least solid section in the same way. Two alternatives:
ALT 2: ... that art is non-science?
less contentious (obvious, even), but brief enough and stark enough that it might be enticing.
ALT 3: ... that non-science is neither science nor pseudoscience?
almost a definition, but "non-science" is equal parts novel and understandable to most readers, so I think it might still intrigue some.
› Mortee talk 00:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
To clarify I'm not saying the article is wrong to classify history as non-science – it's typically classified as a humanity, with its own methodology – but I can see the issue with the hook and without really solid referencing in the article on that point, I don't think we can write it off as a slightly provocative hook. › Mortee talk 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Mortee, thanks for watching this so long.
ALT3 is factually incorrect: non-science does encompass pseudoscience. The split is science vs everything else (as opposed to, say, science vs non-scientific scholarly pursuits vs garbage).
The second sentence of the article directly says that history is non-science, with a source cited at the end of the sentence: "In this model, history, art, and religion are all examples of non-sciences."[1]. That has been present and cited since the first revision of the article. The source itself – a respectable, widely cited, general-audience encyclopedia – says "The English word “science” is primarily used about the natural sciences and other fields of research that are considered to be similar to them. Hence, political economy and sociology are counted as sciences, whereas studies of literature and history are usually not." And, to be clear, this is not an uncommon or minority POV. It is one that most historians accept: they are in the humanities division.
As for the concern that people might think that means that history is uninformative – well, I doubt that it will change anyone's minds, but the contrast between our science-is-everything culture and the reality that some non-science fields are valuable (and valuable even to those very people who say they want everything settled by the Gospel According to Science) is exactly what makes it "hooky". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Struck ALT 3 as you're quite right. I misread "proposed calling these academic fields the parasciences, to distinguish them from disreputable forms of non-science, such as pseudoscience". In that case though, "non-science" does include pseudoscience, which the article should probably mention. I agree with you that history is, in the sense you describe, a "non-science" - I mentioned humanities myself. But, especially since parts of history are scientific and there's only one source for that line of the article so far, my concern is that the hook will be misinterpreted and at the same time lead readers to the part of the article that's most open to debate. I hope the same principles about hookiness and science-vs-value might apply to ALT2. › Mortee talk 22:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg I'm ok with ALT 2. My hesitation with history revolved around the fact that many history departments are included in schools/divisions/colleges of social and behavioral science in academia. Furthermore, these are all short hooks so I don't think they would lose their "punch" with an attribution (which can be an important tool to maintain NPOV), but ALT 2 is ok if you want to stay away from the "according to XYX, ABC is non-science" for some reason. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘

User:Mortee, will your concern go away if I spam a few more citations onto the end of that sentence? I could cite, for example:

  • "Belief systems, and associated practices, can usefully be categorized as: Science (either mature or proto-science), Pseudoscience (non-science that claims to be science) and [other] Non-science (History, Art, Theology, Philosophy, etc.)." [1]
  • "Both scientists and nonscientists seek to gain information and improve understanding in their fields of study. The differences between science and nonscience are based on the assumptions and methods used to gather and organize information and, most important, the way the assumptions are tested. The difference between a scientist and a nonscientist is that a scientist continually challenges and tests principles and assumptions to determine cause-and-effect relationships. A nonscientist may not be able to do so or may not believe that this is important. For example, a historian may have the opinion that, if President Lincoln had not appointed Ulysses S. Grant to be a general in the Union Army, the Confederate States of America would have won the Civil War. Although there can be considerable  argument about the topic, there is no way that it can be tested. Therefore, such speculation about historical events is not scientific. This does not mean that history is not a respectable field of study, only that it is not science. Historians simply use the standards of critical thinking that are appropriate to their field of study and that can provide insights into the role military leadership plays in the outcome of conflicts." [2]

(I am curious about which parts of history you think are scientific. The "repeatable experiment" part seems to be pretty much impossible, for example.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would help, certainly. Since opinions vary on what's science and what's not, adding multiple references is not spam. There's no inline citation on the line mentioning history right now, though the nearby SEP citation does support it. Do you feel strongly that history is a better subject for the hook than art? CC IronGargoyle for his view. With more references I wouldn't object to the hook. › Mortee talk 00:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Mortee, the second sentence in the whole article says this, along with a citation. It says "In this model, history, art, and religion are all examples of non-sciences.[1]" – complete with the very first little blue clicky number in the article, which points to the SEP source. As I said earlier, this sentence, complete with its citation, has been present in every single revision of the article since the very first one. The very first mention of the fact that history (and art, and religion) are not sciences (as that word is understood in English) is already cited, and always has been. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing Sure, I understand that. I read the article, its history and its references, before commenting and since. I ask about art because that hook has been approved. Do you feel it's so much weaker than using history as the example that you don't want to go ahead with the DYK using it? In either event, adding another reference to the article would not be a bad thing, partly because the article states plainly (as does ALT0) that history is a non-science. The SEP reference caveats that with a "usually", suggesting that view isn't quite universal. › Mortee talk 12:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope you can understand why I have been finding your responses frustrating. I have now quoted the sentence that says history is a non-science, complete with its citation, in reply to you twice on this page, and you claim to have read the article – so that's now three separate times that you should have encountered this citation – but despite this, you still wrote "There's no inline citation on the line mentioning history right now" in your previous reply. It feels like either you're not reading what I've written anywhere, or you're forgetting it immediately afterwards. Too much cognitive dissonance, maybe? (We are all subject to it.) I can't actually do circles and arrows and a paragraph typed on the back, and blink tags don't work on Wikipedia, but if this conversation isn't sufficient to stop these repeated and absolutely false claims that there's no inline citation on that sentence, then I really don't know what else to try. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:. The article has changed in the last couple of hours. Up until then there was an inline citation for the claim "Non-science includes all areas of study that are not science" but not on any of the lines about particular subjects. That's what my one-time mention of the lack of inline citations, a week ago, was about. Your response above doesn't help at all to understand if you think ALT2 is acceptable or not. › Mortee talk 23:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The removal of the Globalize tag doesn't solve the problem that views on what "is science" vary strongly not only between the English-language tradition and France/Germany/Poland, but also according to same-language philosophers of science). (On history itself, Historical method gives a long discussion of the historical method in general. And an interesting example: the historical hypothesis that Spanish silver was important in the Roman Empire implied predictions for lead isotope fractions in Roman coins; this prediction was tested successfully. So at least part of the historical method can be considered predictive and falsifiable by measurement.) In any case, terminology about which generally accepted academic fields are "non-science" is not directly "knowledge", it's more a question of philosophy of science. The well-sourced existence of the demarcation problem implies that even putting "that art is non-science" as the hook is risky (e.g. some art includes optical illusions and contributes to evidence of how our brains work). I suggest ALT4:
This article is justifiable (I guess) to list attempts to define what is not science, although a merger with demarcation problem might be needed unless there is a big community of philosophers of science who insist that the term "non-science" is relevant. On a slight tangent, astronomy is about to become a non-field-of-study in Poland, the birthplace of Nicolaus Copernicus, while theological sciences will remain a field-of-study (pdf, pl) according to the draft text from the higher education Ministry. Boud (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC) [Just to clarify on my tangent point: studying astronomy will not be forbidden; "field-of-study" means "academic field", for the purposes of university organisation, ministry-level management, funding decisions by robots based on bibliometry weighted by numbers of printed paper copies of a journal, and so on.] Boud (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Since noone edited or commented yet, I modified ALT4. The reason is that non-science itself does not really depend on the demarcation problem (e.g. if we include art and history as non-science, then art and history themselves do not depend on the demarcation problem, so my ALT4-before-anyone-else-commented was invalid). It seems to me not so easy to make a hook like this without putting the focus on the demarcation problem, since unless you have an opinion on the "right" answer to the demarcation problem, you can't even claim what your own definition of non-science is; a definition of non-science requires a decision/answer to the demarcation problem, except if non-science is defined as one-of-the-two-parts-of-whatever-is-the-result-of-answering-the-demarcation-problem. That's why I put "related to", so that the focus remains on "non-science." Boud (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Boud, thanks for the thought you've put in here. I think ALT4 pre-editing was too vague to be a good hook, and this version is just a definition, so I'm not sure it's a great hook either. Do you think there's enough controversy to ALT2 (art = non-science) that it should actually be struck? I really hope not. My own view is that the use of optical illusion as a tool of science, as useful and interesting as it is, doesn't make art a science any more than potato printing makes farming an artform. It's an area of connection but not in a way that's going to cause readers who see "art is a non-science" to balk too fiercely. Since the DYK is five months old now I'm just hoping to find a hook enough people agree on, which I'm still hoping is ALT2 – the only one ticked so far – and to leave other discussions like merger for another time. › Mortee talk 21:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to close this off, but ALT2 still seems problematic to me. I'm wondering whether Zalter claims that maths is a science... Mathematics and art have strong overlaps. If maths "is science" then there's an independent problem with "art is non-science". The problem with ALT2 is that we can't really say that A is B when there's controversy about what B is, even if B is a negative definition. The lead and the section Areas of non-science would need to be corrected for ALT4 to make sense, and I think both (the lead and section Areas of non-science) should be corrected anyway. The lead and the definite style of language, implying that no variation in academic opinion exists, such as "includes", "encompasses", are inconsistent with the Classifying knowledge section preceding it. Some WP:NPOVing such as "According to Edward Zalter,", or if more sources are found, "Non-science is typically defined to include all or most of the humanities", would help in NPOVing (and in making ALT4 viable). I guess I'll have a go at this, since I've spent this long thinking about it... Enough blabla, I'll edit... Boud (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine a world where art, as a discipline, is considered a science. So far, the sources in the article (I still don't think adding more would hurt) agree. There may be more nuances in the case of history. Maths is always an interesting case in (discovery vs invention etc) but, for DYK purposes, I don't think it affects the art/science distinction one way or another. › Mortee talk 22:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
There are multiple POVs about whether the formal sciences (e.g., mathematics) is "science" in the modern English (also French, BTW) conception of that term. This is mentioned in the article, as the very first sentence at Non-science#Areas of disagreement, with two citations.
I have seen zero support in reliable sources for the idea that art is a science. There is even some disagreement about whether art (i.e., making a painting) is a proper scholarly field of study/Wissenschaft. (In that POV, the artist is a mere tradesman, and the art critic and the art historian are scholars.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV and WP:CSB problems: This edit completely destroys much of my work in making the text match the sources. Hansson clearly refers to English-language definitions of science versus non-science, and his main point is about non-science versus pseudo-science, not science versus non-science. ALT2 is misleading in relation to Hansson's main point. Sorry, but at least for the moment, I'm not going to do more work to try to NPOV this article or try to get the text to match the sources. Anyone interested in bringing this article to DYK standards should consider reverting that edit or going to the edit and editing from there if reversion is no longer practical. A hook "... that A is B" where we have a decent quality article saying that B is a disputed term (by the sources, not by Wikipedians) is not a hook that qualifies for the front page IMHO. Boud (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (minor edit: strike "completely", add "much") Boud (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (minor edit: s/much/much of/) Boud (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think that the parts not recently edited by me also need checking for matches between sources and text before this article could be considered to qualify for DYK in terms of sourcing. Boud (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    This edit is quite surprising too: the source mainly talks about how in the 1980s it was found that there were some quite serious scientific contributions from alchemy; the edit matches half the information in the source's title, but hides the main point of the source, even though it's relevant in the context. Anyway, I'm not going to edit-war here - others will have to decide whether or not to restore my edits. Boud (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    Whether alchemists produced any "scientific contributions" is just irrelevant to this article. (You could add that material to the Alchemy article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol delete vote.svg Sorry, I forgot to put a label here. WP:NPOV and presenting an English-language point of view as a world point of view mean that the article is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. It "requires considerable work before becoming eligible". Boud (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    Your changes made it sound like non-science – one of the two "halves" of knowledge that result from the demarcation problem – was just one guy's idea, which is misleading in the extreme. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Help finding the inline citation
Notice that the second sentence in the lead contains (a) the word history, which is underlined in this screenshot, and (b) an inline citation, which the large purple arrow is pointing at.

User:Mortee, please have yet another look, right here, in this image. Can you now find the little blue superscripted [1] at the end of a sentence that names "particular subjects"? Can we please agree that this means that there is indeed an inline citation in this article, for this fact? Please? I think I'm going to go mad if we can't reach an agreement about something that is so obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Hansson does not say that history is a non-science, and he does not say that art is a non-science. He says that in English, history is usually considered to not be a science. I see nowhere where he mentions art. Boud (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Caveats (noun sense 2) are a fundamental part of systematic fields of enquiry. Summaries can bypass caveats by attributing claims. Boud (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (improved/clarified caveat link) Boud (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm striking out my second sentence there, because I disagree with it (I wrote it too quickly). Boud (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing you're right, and I apologise. I was focusing on the section "Areas of non-science" too much. › Mortee talk 06:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad that we have that resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It appears that the sourcing issue has been resolved, can this move forward now? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
    • (from Talkback) Since a second source has been added that does say that history is a non-science (the original said that it was 'usually' considered one; not precisely the same thing), I don't object to that hook any more, as a reflection of what the article says and cites. It was IronGargoyle who originally objected to it, though; I just agreed and tried to offer an alternative, which has since been struck by Boud. I'm not standing in the way of this, so if there aren't continuing objections from them, go for it. › Mortee talk 10:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Hansson, Sven Ove (2017). "Science and Pseudo-Science". In Zalta, Edward N. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg IronGargoyle has not responded to multiple requests to return to this review, while Boud has not edited in over two weeks. As such, a new reviewer is requested to finish this. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing really for me to respond to. I made a suggestion to try to get this moving forward. When my suggestion wasn't taken, I checked ALT 2, but then the discussion went sideways again. I came here to give a few suggestions and try to move this forward. I didn't come here to get involved in an Asian land war. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I'm almost of the thinking that this should be closed simply because it's been open too long, but because I would spend less time reviewing this than figuring out who was at fault: the bulleted list of non-science disciplines requires a source, and the hook, in my view, is too obvious to be hooky. Vanamonde (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if my new attempt to improve WP:NPOV and WP:CSB and matching text to sources in this edit is accepted by others. There's no point debating a hook if the article itself diverges too far from Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV, CSB, and inline sourcing. The version right now has (as mentioned by Vanamonde) one cn entry, which would need to be fixed (sourced or removed) before considering this for DYK. I WP:COOLed off after my previous edits disappeared; it would be nice if my new edits could be built upon rather than reverted. Boud (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, with how long this nomination has been around and with how long it's stalled, it doesn't seem likely that the issues can be resolved in a prompt manner. Considering that issues still continue to exist with the very concept and how it is handled in the article, it appears that solving the problem is difficult. Taking these into account, it is with regret that this nomination is marked for closure as stale. Time to put this out of its misery. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 22[edit]

Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971

  • ... that oppositionist delegates of the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 were among the first to be arrested when Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law in the Philippines? "The meticulous planning and flawless execution of martial rule emphasized the brilliance and thoroughness of Marcos. Congress was padlocked and its most eloquent members detained. The constitutional convention was purged of its anti-Marcos members...." - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 157

"The delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were deemed anti-marcos like Napoleon Rama, Voltaire Garcia, Teofisto Guingona, Jose Nolado, Bren Guiao, and Jose Concepcion were also detained." Duka (2008) Struggle for Freedom p. 307

  • ALT1: ... that the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 was rocked in May 1972 when a delegate exposed a bribery scheme in First Lady Imelda Marcos was implicated, alongside 13 others? "In May 1972, before all the assembled members of the Convention, Quintero unexpectedly made a public disclosure that the media called a 'bombshell'. He had been receiving, he said, money in envelops, amounting to over P11,000 which almost certainly came from Marcos' wife. He set all the envelops aside, waiting for the right time for him to speak out. 'I want to do the correct thing,' he said." - http://www.bantayog.org/quintero-eduardo-t/

"On that day, delegate Eduardo Quintero of Leyte ... revealed that he and a number of fellow delegates had been receiving money from Marcos.... By his account, Quintero received envelopes containing money that were supposed to have come from the First Lady." - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 133

  • ALT2: ... that oppositionist delegates in the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 tried several times to add provisions disallowing Ferdinand or Imelda Marcos from staying in power after 1973? "Even as the law calling fro elections for the convention was being deliberated in Congress, anti-Marcos politicians tried to incorporate a 'Ban the Marcoses' provision.... Thereafter, anti-Marcos delegates to the convention tried to build the 'Ban Marcos' provision into the charter they were drafting." (The next two paragraphs detail the Rama resolution and the Manglapus committee resolution.) - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 132
  • Reviewed: Chang and Eng Bunker, Nominated on July 18
  • Comment: DYK Check shows 11707 characters; Created 4 days ago; Made this myself, but also made sure Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows copyvio problems are "unlikely". I even tried to paginate the references I used for the specific facts. This is my first DYK nom, so I shouldn't need to QPQ review, but I reviewed Chang and Eng Bunker anyway. :D

Created by Alternativity (talk). Self-nominated at 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

Hi. I'll take a look at the unsourced statements as soon as I can - that's probably just a sentence layout oversight on my part, in most cases. I'm not sure how to address redundancies, though. Would you mind pointing me in a more specific direction, redundancies-wise? Thanks again for the review.- Alternativity (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5. Well, I've shortened the lede section where I suppose there might have been some redundancy, although I've tried to make sure it still serves as a summary of the rest of the article's outline. I've added a more definitive references for the arrested delegates and the rushing of the approval. I've tried to figure out which facts don't have citations yet, but mostly they're covered by the citation at the end of each paragraph, and I didn't want to overcite unnecessarily. If you have any more specfic suggestions, I think I can quickly make specific changes, but I think I covered it all already... I hope? - Alternativity (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alternativity: Unless the information in the lede isn't repeated in the article body, I'd suggest that you remove the references from the lede as redundant; just keep them in the article text. In addition, I'd suggest that you'd link to either Martial law in the Philippines or to Proclamation No. 1081 during the first mention of "Martial Law". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Will do when I get to work in a few hours. Although I thought a big part of the point of the lede section was to provide a brief outline the contents of the rest of the article, including major themes/issues? Hehe. Maybe I've been writing ledes wrong all this time. - Alternativity (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I meant the lede looks fine to me as it is right now, what I meant to say that the citations in the lede are unnecessary unless the information isn't anywhere else in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Oh! Okay. Anyway. I did what I could to shorten it, and also linked the first mention of Martial Law to Implementation of Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos, which is the most specific article for the topic in question. I've moved references to outside of the lede section. Personally I'm scared that's going to leave the lede section vulnerable to POV pushing, but maybe I should trust the process a bit more. hehe. Anyway. Cleanup done, as far as I can tell. :D Do tell me if there's anything more I should try. - Alternativity (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I suppose this is too late to request for 21 September? :S
Right now September 21 is already on queue. I suppose I can give a quick review now and then post at WT:DYK if this can still go up for tomorrow. If not, an alternative date could be September 23, which is the date Martial Law was actually announced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

General eligiblity:

  • New Enough: Green tickY
  • Long Enough: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - Despite the title of the article, it seems the article was more about the circumstances surrounding the convention than the convention itself. The convention section only discusses membership but does not go into details on how members were elected, where it took place, and other important details As such, before this is approved, the sections specifically about the convention need to be expanded.

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg @Alternativity: Due to the pressing concern, I'm in doubt that this can make it to tomorrow or even on September 23, unless the requested changes are made immediately. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Yes, I agree it won't make it to Sept 23, not just because of time, but because the offline references are a bit hard to access, and they don't all necessarily contain the information you described. (Will start looking more closely at what's in Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1970, though. Huh. This might take a while. :S = Alternativity (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alternativity: It's been a few weeks since my last comment, can you still do it? I can recommend to you some libraries you can visit if you need access to offline sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on July 27[edit]

Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz

Gärtnerplatztheater in 2018
Gärtnerplatztheater in 2018

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 10:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg written neutrally, properly expanded, has referencing, QPQ done...ummm...I can't see anything about recent refurbishment in the article...and it'd be better to have dates of restoration than just "recently". How about a hook about some of the performances that have been there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: I agree with Casliber that the hook's interest is somewhat questionable, as old buildings being restored is not exactly quirky. How about a hook focusing on how it used to be a Nazi State Theatre (i.e. a hook about this sentence "The reopening of the only state operetta house in Germany on 20 November 1937 presented Die Fledermaus by Johann Strauss, with Adolf Hitler in the audience")? In addition, some sentences (such as "Eine Fahrt ins Blaue, a Lustspieloperette composed by Bernhard Stimmler..." and "The world premiere of Burkhard's Das Feuerwerk...") lack footnotes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be quirky. I don't want to reduce a long history to Nazi only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. Unfortunately, I don't think the hook right now meets this criterion. Not all hooks need to be a concise summary of the whole article, if anything, hooks focusing on only one aspect are sometime encouraged, as long as it's interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the education. What in "I don't want to reduce it to Nazi alone" did you not understand? In a bio, I won't mention only one negative aspect, even if catchy. (Actually I would mention no negative aspect.) - I will have time for this next week, Debussy's birthday is over, but Bernstein 25 and Vaughan Williams 26 still need work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
If you don't like my Nazi theatre suggestion, Casliber above said that a possible alternate hook could involve some of the works that have been performed there. And what I meant when I quoted that rule was your comment "It doesn't have to be quirky", as the hook as it stands is quite bland (it focuses on the restoration part, which isn't exactly that hooky). In addition, the DYK rules don't prohibit negative hooks, unless BLPs are involved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Repeating: I will have time for this next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
"recently restored for several years" is not idiomatic - change to "recently restored over several years" or rephrase eg as "in restoration for several years", Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It has been a week when two more people tried whom I tried to get to recent death, on top of normal work. - The answer is yes, but today is another day with little time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is another suggestion:

ALT1: ... that the Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz (pictured) in Munich, a royal theatre in the 19th century, became the only state operetta theatre in Germany when the Nazi regime cited operettas as particularly suited to connecting people with the theatre arts? Jmar67 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to give so much prominence to Nazi ideology. Will look now - finally - at article and hook, sorry for the delay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Some refs and external links added. Combining performances, we could say:
ALT2: * ... that the Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz (pictured), built in Munich as a royal theatre for operettas, played Die lustige Witwe as a Nazi State Theatre, and for the reopening after five years of restoration in 2017?
Casliber, do you remember this was open? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg You need to add its staging in Nazi era to the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I knew but forgot. Done now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry, but I don't really find the new hook interesting either. The hook being proposed right now goes along the likes of "a theater played opera X in the past and performed it again recently", which isn't really hooky to a broad audience (as it stands, the hook really only appeals to opera fans, but not necessarily general readers). A new hook needs to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No hook is promoted right now. ALT2 was suggested. The house has a history of 150 years, and I think it should show a bit, hooky or not. Casliber is the reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sorry about that word, it was a typo that's now been fixed. As for the showing part, that's good to know, but that's what the article is for, a hook should instead emphasize something interesting, fascinating, or quirky about a subject. Yes the building may be 150 years old, but many opera houses are even older than that, so it's not really unusual in the grand scale of things. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you please strike, rather than making my comment look silly ;) - Casliber is the reviewer. (How I love it, after more than 1000 DYK, to be told what a hook should do.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
DYKs can have more than one reviewer, though, particularly if consensus cannot initially be reached with one. With that said, I'm also interested in what Casliber thinks of ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was interesting enough that it was performed in the nazi era and then now. Not earth-shattering but hooky enough to pique interest....happy to get more opinions without prejudice...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I've just struck the original hook because of the issues noted above. I should also point out that Die lustige Witwe is far better known (at least to the English-speaking public) as The Merry Widow, and any hook here using the English version would be more likely to get clicks than its title in German. (It would also be completely unsurprising that it's been performed in every era since its creation, given how popular it has been, so the interest cited by Cas Liber surely plummets.) I gather there was deliberate decision to avoid the link to Hitler (it is said here to have been his favorite operetta), and it is not clear from what it written in the article whether he actually saw that operetta at this theatre, though the source may (or may not) be more definitive in that regard. I would like to point out that the second-to-last paragraph, about musicals at the theatre and world premieres of operas, is completely uncited, and needs at least one citation per DYK rules. I do have one question for Gerda Arendt: was the theatre actually built as a royal theatre, or did it only become one in 1870 when the king bought it? The history talks about a committee for a Volkstheater, and that Ludwig "conceded a new building" (I'm not sure "conceded" is the correct word here), which would seem to indicate that he gave the building, not that it was his. If it didn't start as a royal theatre, then ALT2 is problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Changed "conceded" to "authorized". Jmar67 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    ALT3: * ... that the Staatstheater am Gärtnerplatz (pictured) in Munich was a royal theatre for operettas in the 19th century and a Nazi State Theatre from 1937?
    People can guess that it is still active from the image. I don't see the problem with the precise start of "Royal" because the century was long. We could also give the year of the label "Königlich" if it's a problem. Just waking up, no time yet for sourcing. Please keep in mind that I know nothing more about the theatre than I translated, and still have not been to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 5[edit]

History of the Jews in Alaska

  • ... that ...in 1906 and during the early 1940s, Alaska was strongly considered as a potential Jewish settlement for jewish people escaping persecution in Europe/Russia? Source: Anchorage Daily News (in article)], Jewish Social Studies. Indiana University Press (in article)]
  • ... that in 1906 and during the early 1940s, Alaska was considered as a potential refuge for Jews escaping pogroms and the Holocaust? Source: Anchorage Daily News (in article)], Jewish Social Studies. Indiana University Press (in article)] Source: Anchorage Daily News (in article)], Jewish Social Studies. Indiana University Press (in article)]

Created/expanded by Zchai72 (talk). Nominated by JC7V7DC5768 (talk) at 22:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC). ALT1:


Hook eligiblity:

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

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Review is incomplete - please fill in the "status" field

Hey thanks for the suggestion. I've added the ALT1, and I will soon fix the other issues. JC7V-constructive zone 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And I now fixed the rest, thanks for the help. JC7V-constructive zone 18:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I added what you suggested as an 'alt 1', I would like to use that as the hook. JC7V-constructive zone 20:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is DYK appropriate but needs copyediting for Flow. Szzuk (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Szzuk: Hi Szzuk, thank you for commenting. Do you mean the article itself needs copyediting for flow or that this DYK statement itself needs copyediting for flow? If it's this DYK itself that needs those improvements, I just insterted Catriona's suggested wording of the DYK (after I first read your comment). He/she suggested it to me as a ALT 1 but it seems better than any wording that I can come up with. JC7V-constructive zone 20:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant the article could do with a copyedit for flow, it is really just about how one sentence leads to the next, the content itself is fine. I would have a go at doing this myself but it is one of my own weak areas, does someone else here know how to request this copyedit? Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Szzuk: Hi, I tried to fix up some parts of the article myself. If you can point me to specific paragraphs and the sort which need to be fixed in the article, I can further fix them or I can get my mentor AE (who is part of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to fix them too. Thank you. JC7V-constructive zone 22:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @Szzuk: Ok ,the article is fixed just as you requested (via Two Fingered Typist copyediting it). So is the DYI good to go?? JC7V-constructive zone 19:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Came here after the ping. I admit that this is outside my usual fields so I can't really be of much help here, but I do have to note that the sentence beginning with "There are presently two permanent rabbis in the state" is unsourced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the feedback. I've removed that unsourced statement since I couldn't find any sources online to back it up. JC7V-constructive zone 02:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Luckily, Two Fingered Typist reinsterted the material with a reliable source so it is sourced now. Thank you TTT. JC7V-constructive zone 19:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The only remaining problem is with the hook, the refs you've noted above are located on an American server which won't let me view them as I'm in Europe. Can you copy and paste the relevant text from those websites into this page? Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Szzuk: Hi i posted the relevant source info from the two sources on this DYK's talk page. Thank youJC7V-constructive zone 19:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 7[edit]

Women in Iceland

Created/expanded by Yellow.Umbrella (talk), Ipigott (talk), and Frayae (talk). Nominated by Frayae (talk) at 22:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Hello, Frayae. Thanks for the nomination; the article is very interesting. It needs some attention for MOS:WTW; while I don't think it's non-neutral for Wikipedia's voice to imply that gender equality is good, as this reflects the balance of sources, we probably shouldn't say that a politician's lectures are amusing, even if a source does. The article uses very extensive quotes, and some fairly close paraphrases, and the English is clear but sometimes slightly non-colloquial. I've been copy-editing it and will do some more. There are a few confusing points.
Some information that is not there and would really improve it (see other "Women in... articles and redirects). It would be entirely acceptable to quote Icelandic-language sources, ideally with the quote added to the citation to make it easier to check.
While it misleadingly fails the automated DYK check, it was moved out of draftspace on the seventh, and so qualifies.
I think the fascinating part of this article is the equal-pay action, which also deserves its own article. I'd suggest a hook that brings it in, such as
  • ALT1:... that women in Iceland walk off the job en masse after a calculated proportion of the workday?
  • ALT2:... that the first woman voted in as head of state says she wouldn't have got her job if women in Iceland hadn't walked away from theirs?
....just as initial ideas. HLHJ (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello, Frayae. It looks as if we do have an article on the 1975 Icelandic women's strike. I've linked to it, and we might want to merge some of the content. The ALT2 hook would still work, but ALT1 seems more suited to the main article. It would be good to expand some other content, too. We might, for instance, include content on the history of women's sufferage, women's property, marriage law, parental leave (is there a father's quota?), proportion of housework done by men and women, alignment of school and working hours, childcare provisions, what professions have severe gender imbalances and how these have changed over time, affirmative action programs... Pre-20th-century history would also be good. HLHJ (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi HLHJ. These are all definitely things that should be done, I like both hook ideas you came up with as well. Although the article needs significant expansion, the DYK process is very time limited so I went straight for it. I hope you don't mind too much. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Frayae, great infobox! The clock is on the nomination, and it's safely nominated; I don't mind at all, and I don't mind re-reading it. HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I added a little, then got stuck trying to understand the role of women in Iceland during the Viking Age. This might take some time to expand. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 8[edit]

Working Definition of Antisemitism

  • ... that the inter-governmental Working Definition of Antisemitism has generated controversy over its inclusion of examples of criticism of Israel? Source: Kenneth L. Marcus (17 July 2015). The Definition of Anti-Semitism. Oxford University Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN 978-0-19-937565-3. At the same time, the Working Definition has had its share of critics, as should be expected of any serious intergovernmental effort to address this difficult subject. In 2011, the United Kingdom's University and College Union (UCU), a trade union of English university professors, considered a motion to disassociate itself from the EUMC definition... based on a belief that it "confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti-Semitism"... This triggered a lively controversy that engulfed not only the English academic and Jewish communities, but also Jewish, human rights, and higher education groups throughout Europe and Worldwide. In the United States, the meaning and application of the Working Definition have been contested even among those who support it. In 2011, Kenneth Stern, who was then the top anti-Semitism expert at the American Jewish Committee, drew intense criticism when he... argued that the Working Definition was being invoked by complainants in federal civil rights cases before the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to censor speech that is critical of Israel.

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 11:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Created 8 August from redirect. Other creator not mentioned in the nom: Jonney2000. If/when this is promoted, I recommend page protection as this is a controversial topic. I cannot find NPOV in the article, though. Catrìona (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Catrìona: thanks for your review. I have now added the inline citations for the direct quotations. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - the hook is not neutral. The IHRA's definition is generally accepted by most in the field. What has generated controversy is UK's Labour fiddling with the examples provided by the IHRA for antisemitism. The controversy is Labour - as might be seen in Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party‎. Some of Labour's supporters have been critics of some points in IHRA - but that has been following the controversy. The citation used to support the hook is used out of context - it refers to a controversy involving the UCU, long accused of antisemitism, which attempted to change the definition of antisemitism (in relation the IHRA definition). The controversies here, if at all, are around groups accused of antisemitism who attempt to change the definitions used.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The citation refers to the 2011 UCU controversy in the UK and the 2011 AAUP-AJC controversy in the US.[3] You have kindly mentioned the 2018 Labour Party controversy in the UK. I could also add the 2016-18 controversy in congress regarding the proposed Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.[4] That’s already four separate controversies in two countries. The article contains further examples, and more could be added as necessary. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Here are two further sources: Professor David Feldman, Sub-Report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, 1 January 2015, page 4: "However, the definition itself rapidly became a topic of controversy rather than consensus. The points at issue included what the status of a 'working definition' actually was, whether the working definition was an effective and coherent definition at all, and, finally, controversy dogged the application of the working definition to debate on the State of Israel and its policies. The criticisms have been damaging and the EUMC working definition largely has fallen out of favour."; and The Times of Israel, [5] "Koren’s statement came as confirmation to reports, including by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, that Russia was the only country blocking the adoption of the definition, which is controversial because it lists some forms of hate speech on Israel as an example of anti-Semitism."
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Looking at the article again, I notice that it has a "Criticism" section but not a section for its supporters. For such a controversial topic, we should avoid even the appearance of partiality. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to determine if the hook and/or the article are impartial, so I'm requesting a second opinion on NPOV. Catrìona (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: FYI at Talk:Antisemitism#RFC: Should Wikipedia adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism?, the user above (Icewhiz) made the same argument re his view that there is no controversy, which was his rationale here for asserting that the hook is not neutral. That RFC is benefitting from wide participaion, so once it has finished it should be possible to assess consensus not just on the RFC question but also on how many other editors share Icewhiz's view that there is no controversy. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That RfC is a borderline NOTAFORUM violation that didn't suggest an particular content to the article in question.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The RFC is now closed. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 13[edit]

Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex

  • ... that Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex may be the only Roman consul to have come from Roman Britain? "It is right to mention the possibility, however remote, that three prominent generals of the later Antonine period may have been natives of Colchester ... and the two Macrini Vindices. All three were enrolled in the tribus Claudia, to whch Camulodunum belonged. ...the younger Macrinus served as equestrians officers in Britain early in their career ... and in any case, the nomenclature Macrinius Vindex suggests origin in a Celtic region." -- Anthony Birley, The People of Roman Britain (Berkeley: University of California, 1979), pp. 116f

Created by Llywrch (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Llywrch: New, long enough, adequately referenced, no copyvio, and the hook is interesting. However, the source (which can be found here) does not mention that Vindex was possibly the only Roman consul from Britain. Do you have a source that directly states this, or some other proof (like a list / book that mentions the origins of the other consuls) for the hook? Applodion (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Applodion, the proof for this assertion is indirect, & is based on a number of possibilities. First, the fact that Vindex was a consul is certain, for the inscription on his tombstone establishes that clearly. Second, please note the language is that he may be the only one. By this, I want to make it clear that he may not be from Britain; however, what evidence we have places him there -- provided in this article. My next source, Géza Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter der Antoninen (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1977), states on page 318 about Vindex: "Angesichts seiner Namen und seiner Claudius tribus wohl entweder aus Colonia Agrippinenisum oder aus Camulodunum, jedenfalls aus einer westlichen Provinz." (Translated: "Given his name and his Claudius tribus, probably either from Colonia Agrippinenisum or Camulodunum, in any case from a western province.") So his connection to Britain is, admittedly, debatable.

Now I suspect your concern is over the portion that he was maybe the only consul to come from Britain. I can understand your skepticism at this, but Roman Britain is one of three Roman provinces which cannot be shown to have with certainty produced any man who was a Roman consul; the other two are Judea (likely because of the chronic unrest by the Jews & Samaritans, which alienated the wealthy of that province from Rome) & Roman Egypt (which was carefully isolated from contact with the Roman Senate due to its importance as a food source for Rome). There will be some uncertainty about whether consuls came from these provinces because there are a few hundred consuls whose origins we do not know -- & it is always difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative. However, here I can cite Anthony Birley in the book The People of Roman Britain (p. 20): "At any rate, no certain British senators can be detected, apart from the anomalous King Cogidubnus." And a prerequisite to becoming a Roman consul is that one has to be enrolled in the Roman Senate; unless another Roman Briton can be proved to be a Roman Senator -- or a Roman Senator shown to have come from Britain -- Vindex may be the only man to hold this distinction.

Having written all that, I have to admit there is one other possible consul from Roman Britain, about whom I learned after submitting this article for DYK: Marcus Statius Priscus, consul in 159. While Birley admits this is possible on pp. 116f, other experts have suggested more strongly that he came from Dalmatia (e.g. Alföldy in the book mentioned above, pp. 314f) than that he came from Britain. I have not yet found another expert who entertains the possibility.

To rephrase this in a TL:DR fashion. To be a Roman consul, one had to be a senator. Roman Britain is known to have produced at most three men who were Senators, of whom one -- Cogidubnus -- is not known to have been a consul. The other two were consuls, but possibly did not come from Britain. Of these two, Vindex is considered to have the stronger case of having come from Britain. Hence, he may be the only one. (Or he may be one of two, or may not have come from Britain at all.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Thank you for the response. The main problem for the hook is that it is not referenced in the article, and hooks normally should be directly referenced. I think it would be ideal if you could reword this explanation a little bit and add it as note to the article; in this way, everyone can see why Vindex might (or might not) have been the only consul from Britain. Then we can pass the DYK as well. Applodion (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Applodion:, I made the revision per your request. Does it meet your expectations? -- llywrch (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Llywrch: Great! As soon as the QPQ is done, I can pass this. Applodion (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Apparently the nominator for Democratic Republic of the Congo will need some time for improvements, so I think it is best that we simply pass this one now. Applodion (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Llywrch: You will need a citation at the end of the sentences where the hook fact is mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Which sentence are you talking about? All assertions in the article have citations. There is a stretch of text in the section "Family background" that does not have a citation, but that's because it's a simple explanation of the probabilities that Vindex & Statius Priscus came from Roman Britain. To repeat what I wrote above, the authorities -- who are named in the article -- consider Vindex to have the strongest case of having come from Britain. Hence, he may be the only one. (Or he may be one of two, or may not have come from Britain at all. After all is said & done, the evidence is not conclusive.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The sentence is "Of the remaining two, Vindex is more certain to have come from Britain than Priscus, which could make him the only consul known to have come from Roman Britain." But now I come to look at the article better, I see that there are a number of paragraphs that do not have citations at the end of the paragraph. This means there is much uncited information in the article which needs attribution before this nomination gets promoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 17[edit]

Josette Frank

Created by Etzedek24 (talk) and Argento Surfer (talk). Nominated by Argento Surfer (talk) at 14:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

Symbol voting keep.svg Interesting life, on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I struck the original because yes it's unusual, but not specific for her. I think children's literature has to be there. - Suggestions for the article: shorter headers, and say "They had two children". Why no image here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Due apologies, but I am not satisfied with the hook, and have pulled this from the prep area. I do not see how the text in the article supports the hook as written. Vanamonde (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I assume the issue is with the second half of the hook? The article clearly references the 1954 Senate hearings investigating a link between comic books and juvenile delinquency, but I have added a broader claim about public opinion with two additional sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, Etzedek24, and Argento Surfer: This has been stuck for a few weeks now, perhaps there could be a way for this nomination can move forward? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde, are you satisfied with my addition to the article? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Apologies, I was not watching this, and I hadn't been pinged. Not quite, I'm not. I'm not actually seeing her described as an advocate for comic books, or the equivalent. Also, the latter half of the first section is unreferenced. Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, I have referenced the early life section to which I believe you were referring, and I have added in material from her book where her comic advocacy is more candid. I'm not sure what else you could want. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Etzedek24: Not quite, I'm afraid. Frank's own book is a good source for a quote, and for very basic biographical detail, but for almost nothing else. Saying "Frank became more candid about her comic book advocacy" and then sourcing it to Frank's own book isn't in compliance with WP:NOR, let alone the requirement to source the hook. We need an independent source saying that. Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Ken Quattro, who wrote a 5-part series on Frank, makes the assertion this DYK is predicated on in the preface to his article. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Quantic Dream

  • ... that the French video game developer Quantic Dream would consider moving to Canada if its tax breaks were taken away?

Improved to Good Article status by Cognissonance (talk). Self-nominated at 21:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Good to go Symbol confirmed.svg
Article promoted to GA on 17th, nominated on 17th
Well over the size minimum
Passes Earwig's Copyvio Detector (8.3% hit is a cited direct quote)
Hook is short and sourced "To tell the truth, without tax breaks I’m pretty certain we’d be in Canada right now."
QPQ provided
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg an issue was raised with the hook at WP:ERRORS2 (permalink). It looks like the wording of the hook, which implies the company would up and leave immediately if the tax breaks were removed, does not match the tongue in cheek nature of the conversation from the source. Cage also says in the same interview that "If there were no tax breaks… well the project would probably still go ahead, but a lot less money would be spent on it", which suggests maybe he wouldn't take the Canadian route. Needs some rewording or perhaps an alt hook I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: There was no tongue-in-cheek. "the project" that would "probably" still go ahead is Heavy Rain. Only after this does he talk about the company as a whole: "To tell the truth, without tax breaks I’m pretty certain we’d be in Canada right now". "now" is referring to 2011, a year after Heavy Rain was published. The interviewer asks "Seriously?" Cage answers "Seriously." Also hard to believe he's being unserious when he goes on to describe the benefits of Canadian tax breaks. I want this hook repromoted. Cognissonance (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it can't be stated as a fact. It might not move. Other things may happen. The best you could hope for would be to say that they said they'd move, not that they would. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: You're moving the goalpost. You were wrong and are now looking for more reasons to disregard my hook. There is nothing wrong with the word "would". It represents a desire to do something. Cage stated his desire to move the company in factual terms. Cognissonance (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Would does not represent a desire to do something. It means it "would" happen. And that's not guaranteed at all. I'm done here, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the way the hook is phrased, it sounds like we're saying in Wikipedia's voice that the move to Canada would follow the removal of tax breaks, as surely as night follows day. That is emphatically not what the source says. Cage is simply making a point about the relative advantage that he sees his Canadian competitor enjoying, and how he would seriously consider upping sticks if the French tax breaks disappeared. That's as far as it goes, but we don't know if he would really move under those circumstances. All manner of eventualities and compromises might emerge. So to suggest anything more than that is WP:CRYSTALBALL. I suggest rewording the hook to make it clear that this is something that Cage has said, rather than it being an objective fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"I would do that" is not the same as saying "I will do that". The first is a statement of possibility, the second is one of certainty. "...according to the founder of the French video game developer Quantic Dream, the company..." defeats the purpose of having a hook. Ruins the flow. Cognissonance (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. "Would" is a conditional, which generally means that if the condition does indeed get met, then the mentioned consequence will definitely occur. "The Earth would get colder if the sun disappeared". Said in Wikipedia's voice, that becomes a basic truth. If the consequence is not certain, however, merely postulated by an individual, than you have to rephrase it as "would consider moving to Canada" or "Joe Bloggs says he would move to Canada"  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Whatever, I'm tired of it all. Cognissonance (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Georg Cantor's first set theory article

Georg Cantor, c. 1870.
Georg Cantor, c. 1870.
  • ... that some mathematicians have disagreed about whether Georg Cantor's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers is constructive or merely existential?

Proof is constructive: Dasgupta 2014, p. 107; Sheppard 2014, pp. 131–132. Proof is non-constructive: Jarvis 2014, p. 18; Chowdhary 2015, p. 19; Stewart 2015, p. 285; Stewart & Tall 2015, p. 333.

Created/expanded by RJGray (talk) and Michael Hardy (talk). Nominated by Michael Hardy (talk) at 04:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but you should link and boldface the article in the hook. Catrìona (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Recently promoted GA article, so clearly meets the article criteria. Original hook is rather technical; I provided a substitute. The QPQ check didn't turn up a review by the nominator - please provide a link to a review. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist: I did this review. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg On further investigation, it appears that the nominator, despite over 200,000 edits, has never nominated a DYK article before. Welcome to DYK, Michael Hardy! RockMagnetist(talk) 19:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I formatted the hook to add "(pictured)". However, there is number confusion between "a transcendental number" and "they" — should the end of the hook be "or merely proves it exists"? Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the submitter of this DYK, but in my opinion the meaning would be conveyed by changing the last two words of the hook. You could change "..they exist" to "..such numbers exist". EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: thanks, I like that. Waiting for the nominator to weigh in... Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: @EdJohnston: The singular in "how to construct a transcendental number" is appropriate since in this context one would construct them one at a time, and the plural is appropriate in "they exist" since the proof shows that many transcendental numbers exist, not just one. Whether it says "they exist" or "such numbers exist" doesn't seem immensely important to me, since the meaning of "they" seems clear from the context. I suppose erring on the side of caution one should be explicit and say "such numbers exist." Michael Hardy (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Restoring tick per RockMagnetist's review. Wait a minute — the review didn't confirm that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Here is a full review: GA approved. New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Images in article and hook are freely licensed. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits.
  • Tweaked hook wording:
  • ALT1a: ... that mathematicians do not agree on whether a proof in Georg Cantor's (pictured) first set theory article actually shows how to construct a transcendental number, or merely proves that such numbers exist?
  • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulling from prep, with due apologies. @RJGray, Michael Hardy, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: The hook might be okay, but the article is not sufficiently referenced. Indeed, I'm a little confused about how it passed the GA review, because though it's well written and I have no reasons to doubt its accuracy, the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" is completely unreferenced. Moreover, this raises neutrality issues, because the article seems to take the view that the proof is a constructive proof ("Some mathematicians have attempted to correct this misunderstanding of Cantor's work.") but this statement depends on the previous section, which, as I said, is not adequately referenced. Vanamonde (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This was stuck in limbo as it was not re-listed. Needs a new reviewer to address concern(s) raised. Alex Shih (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Alex Shih: Apologies for not relisting it, but really this doesn't need a reviewer, it needs work from the creator/nominator. If the sourcing issues were fixed I'd put this back into prep myself. Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: By the "creator" do you mean those who created the page, as opposed to the DYK hook? By "nominator", do you mean the person who nominated it for DYK? (That's me.) By "creator/nominator", do you mean the creator _or_ the nominator? Or do you mean it needs both? An earlier posting to my talk page left me with an impression that the issues had already been addressed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: I think you meant to ping me, rather than Alex. I meant that someone needs to address the sourcing issues I have raised immediately above Alex Shih's comment. The article creator and you are the people best placed to do this, and the people who have an interest in fixing the issue so that the DYK nomination may move forward. This is entirely separate from the message Yoninah left you nine days ago; these are issues I raised two days previously. Vanamonde (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: ok, I think that point is becoming clear. Just to be clear about something else: I am the original article creator, although by now RJGray is to a large extent also the creator. He knows more about the sources and history than I do. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Concerning the sourcing issue about which you state: "Indeed, I'm a little confused about how it passed the GA review, because though it's well written and I have no reasons to doubt its accuracy, the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" is completely unreferenced." In the GA Review, the issue of references for derivations and examples did come up with respect to the section "The Proofs". This issue is the same as the one you are raising for the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" (in this half of the section, I am comparing the derivations in two different proofs). Here is how I handled the issue during the GA Review (next 2 paragraphs I wrote for the GA Review):
Concerning "The proofs": My approach was to stay within the guidelines of WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements whose first paragraph states:
"Wikipedia is neither a textbook nor a journal. Nonetheless, in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, it is frequently helpful to quote theorems, include simple derivations, and provide illustrative examples. For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references, to provide a different derivation, or to provide an example. This is standard practice in journals, and does not make any claim of novelty.[1] In Wikipedia articles this does not constitute original research and is perfectly permissible – in fact, encouraged – provided that a reader who reads and understands the references can easily see how the material in the Wikipedia article can be inferred. Furthermore, copying extensively from a source with only minor modifications is not normally permitted by copyright law, unless the source has a free license."
After receiving my response, the GA reviewer dropped this issue from his list of issues. --RJGray (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about that, RJGray. It's fine to simplify a proof, but even so you should cite the original. At this point, a reader who wishes to know where that proof came from has no way to find it, which is the basic purpose of WP:V. I'm not saying you should cite every sentence, but you should cite the proof. You can add explanatory footnotes with the source if required. Vanamonde (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the current status of this thing? Is it in a queue to appear under "Did you know . . . ?" on the main page? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: No, it is not. As I said above, the article needs to have references for all the proofs, to comply with our policy on verifiability. Once the required references have been added, I will place this in a queue. Vanamonde (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:I have supplied the references for the proofs. Because Cantor was writing a research article for researchers, he left out simple proofs. To handle this, I did the same as I had done earlier on the proof of his uncountability theorem. I point out that he did not supply a proof and then provided a proof for Wikipedia readers. Of course, I do supply a reference to where he states the result that he does not bother proving. --RJGray (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: Okay, I've looked at your changes. They are an improvement, but they do not entirely address my concern. My point is fairly simple; Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication. We collate information; we do not provide new information. As such, if we are presenting a proof, it must be based on a proof published in a reliable source elsewhere. We cannot publish our own proofs, even if the editor writing said proof is quite capable of doing so without error. It is possible that Wikiproject Mathematics sees this differently, in which case I'd like to see a link to that, but I cannot see how WP:V can be satisfied any other way. Please don't take this personally; this sort of mixup often occurs when content written and reviewed by editors familiar with a specific topic is brought to wider scrutiny. If you disagree with this, please feel free to request further feedback at WT:DYK. Also, since Michael Hardy has been blocked indefinitely, I'm afraid this falls entirely on your shoulders at the moment. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your feedback. Don't worry about me taking it personally. I like to get things right and I don't mind differences of opinion—I've handled them before. In fact, one of the pleasurable things about Wikipedia is that differences of opinion are handled with respect. Unfortunately, there are too many websites where this isn't true.
I hope you are not in a rush to settle this issue. Thanks for mentioning the Wikiproject Mathematics site. I plan to bring up the issue there after researching it a bit. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time last week to devote to studying the relevant Wikipedia policies.
This issue is important for me to because I suspect it will occur in the future. I tend to work in history of mathematics and may be faced again with the fact that research mathematicians tend to leave out simple derivations or proofs when communicating with their fellow research mathematicians via articles and letters. The only reason that I provided my own simple derivations was because Cantor left out two: one in his article and the other in a letter to Dedekind. I could follow Cantor and skip the derivations. However, because Wikipedia appeals to a wide audience, I wanted to make sure readers had a complete proof rather than expecting them to finish it. --RJGray (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: I am not in a hurry, though we should try to keep it to a reasonable schedule to be fair to the DYK process. Thanks for not taking it personally. Your position about wanting readers to have a complete proof is quite reasonable, and I'm certainly not suggesting that your derivation is wrong, only that it wouldn't be acceptable on its own even if it were entirely correct, without backing from a reliable source. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: If I compute 5283 × 6117 and get 32,316,111, it may be that no "reliable source" can be cited for the value of the product of those two numbers. But the technique is taught in elementary school. Something similar applies in many cases to routine algebraic derivations in Wikipedia articles. The is then the question of where to draw the line between that sort of thing and original research. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: I would not ask for a source for routine arithmetic, per WP:CALC. However, I would draw the line for requiring reliable sources somewhere between a single-step computation that anyone with access to the internet is capable of performing on their device, and Georg Cantor's theorems. I firmly believe those require a source, and that presenting an editor's own derivation isn't enough. If you disagree, I suggest you invite comments from other editors at WT:DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your patience. Even though I haven't changed my opinion that sources are not needed in this case, I decided that finding sources would be a good challenge of my knowledge of the literature. It took a bit of work but I suceeded. I have updated the Wikipedia article.
The source I found for my proof of the existence of transcendental numbers is Perron's book, which is in German and has not been translated. However, in my research on Wikipedia policies, I learned how to handle this: I've put the German proof and my translation of it in a note (see WP:V#Quoting). The source I found for my proof of Cantor's uncountability theorem is the article "Georg Cantor and Transcendental Numbers".
I must say that I am happier having the sources than not having them—I like to saturate Wikipedia articles with citations. I regard citations as doorways to deeper knowledge of a subject.
However, I think that Wikipedia's verifiability policy of citations and reliable sources can be characterized as "passive verifiability". By this I mean that the citations mostly sit there passively with few people actively looking many of them up. Consider my article with its 63 references with one reference containing 6 citations. How many citations will the typical reader of an article look up? Probably far fewer than 63. On the positive side, the citations are available if issues come up.
Now consider an article's mathematical proofs. Proofs actively engage readers who think through them and decide if they are correct or not. And if they aren't correct, they can fix them. So proofs are an example of "active verifiability". I always read mathematical proofs carefully and when I find one that is inaccurate or not clear, I rewrite it. So the accuracy of a mathematical proof depends not just on the person who initially writes it. Its verifiability is increased by everyone who reads it, thinks about it, and improves it.
On the other hand, I seldom look up the citations of a Wikipedia article unless I'm interested in reading further on the subject. I know it's hard work checking sources—the last thing I do before posting an article I wrote is to check all my citations for accuracy.
Another weakness of Wikipedia's verifiability policy is that reliable sources may have errors. The section "The disagreement about Cantor's existence proof" gives examples. In fact, the books asserting that Cantor's existence proof is non-constructive outnumber the books asserting asserting his proof is constructive.
I wish to thank you for suggesting your improvement. This article has now benefited from two GA reviews (it failed the first one but that motivated me to do a second rewrite of the article) and one DYK review. —RJGray (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: Thanks for the sources. Unless I'm missing something, though, the "first theorem" still doesn't have citations. Also: I'm understanding, from what you said above, that you're using the same source for all of the second theorem (footnote A). If this is the case, please duplicate it (you can just copy the footnote) at the end of all of the relevant paragraphs; else this is going to run into trouble again when it's in prep. In general, even if you're using the same source for multiple paragraphs, duplicate it at the end of each paragraph. As to your other points, I agree in theory, but the fact is that even though I have more mathematical education than probably 99% of the world's population, I would miss most errors in a proof such as this one; which is why we need the refs, even if they aren't followed up on. Vanamonde (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
(GA reviewer here and I've been lurking for a few days.) Per WP:CITEDENSE, there's no "one citation per paragraph" rule on Wikipedia. Repeating a citation every paragraph is an optional stylistic choice. If a user would remove this from the DYK queue for that reason then they would be in the wrong. As for the "first theorem" section, if my memory is correct then I recall that it's a summary of parts of the Cantor article, vacuously sourced to that article, along with a bit of WP:SCG/WP:CALC. (Per WP:MINREF it didn't need an inline citation... but the fact you claim it does counts as a "challenge" and actually means it now does, somewhat bizarrely.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Well, in my opinion articles should always have a minimum of one citation per paragraph, but in any case this is actually codified as a DYK rule (supplementary rule D2, if you're interested). In any case, if parts are based on the George Cantor article, then that needs to be fixed. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and if that article is in such good shape, then it should be easy enough to copy references over. Vanamonde (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, when I said "vacuously sourced to that article", I meant "vacuously sourced to the primary source of Cantor's paper", not some other Wikipedia article. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
That's even easier, then: just add that as a source, with an explanatory footnote if necessary, at the end of every paragraphs that's taken from it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 and Bilorv: I don't want to bother with the question of whether or not I need references in the subsections "First theorem" and "Second theorem". I was surprised that I didn't put them in! I like to encourage my readers to read Cantor's original article. One way I do this is to supply references to his article and to a translation of his article whether they are needed or not. So I added them.
Concerning the DYK supplementary rule D2. This rule states: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." According to Rule of thumb: "The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation." If it was a rigid rule that required one citation per paragraph, I've already came up with two problems such a rigid requirement can create:
(1) Let's say I had an article that I planned to nominate for DYK and one paragraph of my article had no citation but the following paragraph had more than one. Then I might change my paragraphing so the first paragraph would have one citation. Of course, this could negatively affect the writing quality.
(2) Consider the Cantor article. The first paragraph of Georg Cantor's first set theory article#Example of Cantor's construction is a description of a simple example that I made up to illustrate how Cantor's construction works. I am permitted to have such an example by WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements: "Nonetheless, in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, it is frequently helpful to quote theorems, include simple derivations, and provide illustrative examples. For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references, to provide a different derivation, or to provide an example. … In Wikipedia articles this does not constitute original research and is perfectly permissible …" Since I'm providing the example it has no reference. So if rule D2 was rigid, I'd have to decide which was most important: A "Did you know" or an example that helped my readers.
By the way, I have 67 references in 49 paragraphs, which is 1.37 refs/paragraph. So my article is averaging 37% more refs per paragraph than an article that only contains one ref per paragraph. ≈—RJGray (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: I'm a bit busy at the moment so please forgive the short response. First off, right now I'm only seeing a citation for theorem two. Second, the problems with writing style and structure are easily addressed by duplicating references. I feel like I am somehow not getting this point across, but it's very simple, and it addresses your concern entirely. If multiple paragraphs are sourced to page 2 of Cantor's paper, then you just cite page 2 of Cantor's paper after each of those paragraphs. Why is this proving so difficult? Vanamonde (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sorry, I'm a bit tired and it appears that I didn't submit my changes, which are done now. On paragraphing, there may be a problem on "Second theorem". I see three options on the structure of the paragraph starting: "Either the number of intervals generated is finite or infinite" Option 1: the ending of case 3 is the end of the paragraph (this is where I put a ref). Option 2: each case is a paragraph, so in this option, I would put a ref after every case. Option 3: the sentence following the cases is the end of the paragraph, so in this option, I would put the ref at the end of this sentence. I chose Option 1 because I think the colon implies that the three cases belong to the same sentence as the colon. Which option do you think is best? Take your time answering, I'm getting off the computer now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJGray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: My apologies, I've been inactive for the past few days. Your latest changes look good. My final citation quibble is about the proof provided in "dense sequences", which also appears not to have a source. Since the article does not seem to hinge on this, you could simply temporarily remove the section if you want to move forward with this quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I'm happy that you are pleased with my latest changes. I've made one further change. In my last response, I mentioned the "Example of Cantor's construction" as not needing a citation for an example. I suspect that quite a few examples in math articles won't have a citation available, but it turns out that this particular example does have one. When I was writing it, I must have been concentrating on the math and forgot that nearly the same example appeared in the literature as an exercise. But returning to it now, I remembered that it looked familiar and remembered the probable source. I've added a note about this.
Concerning dense sequences, I have a suggestion. But first the reasons I would like to keep it:
1. In the next section, I use denseness to prove that Cantor's construction generates infinitely many intervals.
2. It identifies what is mathematically special about the second case.
3. It deepens a reader's appreciation of the three cases because they are regarding them from a different angle.
4. It helped me in my reply to Ipsic's question (see next section of Talk).
5. See last sentence in next paragraph.
My suggestion is to bring in Cantor's second proof of the uncountability of the reals, which he published in 1879. This proof is not generally known, at least not in the US. As far as I know, it hasn't been translated into English, but there is a French translation from the 1880s. His second proof only uses 2 cases: The given set of reals is dense or not dense in the interval [a, b]. In the second case, there's an open interval (c, d) containing no reals from the given set, so any real in this open interval does not belong to the given set (this handles cases 1 and 3 in one step). In ths dense case, he gets a single real number. I think that this addition would add to the comprehensiveness of the article and it's a simple example of a great mathematician viewing his theorem from another angle and developing a new proof.
Of course, it will take me a bit of time to add the new material in a succinct way that meshes nicely with what's there. I hope to keep it down to a short paragraph. The big unknown is his dense case. I didn't have the time today to look at it (I'd like to figure it out on my own before looking at his proof). Also, I will be on vacation from next Wednesday to the following Tuesday and won't be around computers as much, but I will have hours of travel to work on the new material.
Thanks for all your feedback. I do appreciate the work you are doing for this Cantor article and the work you do for Wikipedia. —RJGray (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: If you have a citation available, that's great, and you should add it. About denseness: I recognize that there's good reasons for wanting it in the article, but unless Cantor's 1879 paper is implying it very directly, I don't think that's a good route to go down. We're coming back to a fairly basic problem here. I probably have had more education in math than most Wikipedia readers: yet, I could not tell if there was an error in the mathematical argument you put forth above. Thus in the absence of a reference saying that, it isn't really verifiable. Please understand, I'm not blaming you for this; it's quite possibly common practice in the mathematics Wikiproject. But to an outsider, this is a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid this doesn't accord with the text of WP:SCG. It reads "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline." It then gives three statements which I do not understand at all, and yet they don't need citations because they are uncontroversial among people familiar with the subject. In the case of dense sequences, I can understand the argument easily using only first year undergraduate knowledge (because that's my current level of education), so it's hardly controversial or requiring of esoteric methods. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I'm aware of the guideline, but I'm afraid you're misreading it. The guideline allows some flexibility in where citations need to be placed, and how general they might be. It does not permit completely unsourced content. Some source in the article needs to support the information in it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: My current plan to eliminate the "Dense sequences" subsection and add a new section "Cantor's second uncountability proof" following the "Example of Cantor's construction" subsection. I figured out Cantor's 1879 proof and now I've starting reading it. He calls it a simplification of his 1874 proof and it is. It only has 2 cases, the old Case 1 and Case 3 are handled at the same time, and Case 2 is the dense sequence case. This happens because he points out that there are two kinds of sets: those that are dense in the interval [a, b] and those that are not. This splits the new proof into two cases at the start. His original proof starts with his construction and the construction divides the proof into three cases. Since I'll be gone for a week, it will take me a minimum of a week and a half, but probably a bit longer since I want the writing to be as good as the rest of the article and this always takes time. So you will have your references and I'll have that Case 2 is the dense set (or sequence) case. Also, readers will learn of Cantor's second proof, which I didn't know about for years. Overall, I think it will improve the article. —RJGray (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@RJGray: Sounds good, ping me when you are done. Vanamonde (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on August 22[edit]

Wheels Up

  • ... that Wheels Up is an aviation company with members who pay for on demand use of the corporate fleet of jets.
  • Comment: There is some issue on whether this corporate article resembles an WP:ADVERT. Let's discuss.

Moved to mainspace by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 07:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: how does on-demand air service differ from an air charter? Mindmatrix 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I would presume that an air charter involves paying open market rates for rental service while this is a membership model, in which one rents a plane at member rates. It is not clear what advance notification is needed for an air charter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment regardless of anything, "on demand" in the hook is a dab link. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I think a new hook is needed here since this company is not the only example of a subscription-based airline, for example Surf Air. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I thought a hook just had to be interesting. I didn't know it had to be about a subject that is unique to the history of the world.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: True, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not really that important. If say if it had been the first of its kind, maybe the hook could have worked. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What facts do you consider important in this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, there doesn't seem to be much else hook-worthy in the article, other than perhaps the same day shuttles for college football games. I suppose if we really must go with the current proposal, it should still be rewritten. Like something like "... that Wheels Up is an example of a subscription-based airline?" or something to that effect. I also note that the article right now has a big "Advert" tag at the top. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

General eligiblity:

  • New Enough: Green tickY
  • Long Enough: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - The article has a big "advert" tag at the top, this need to be addressed; in "Wheels up has exclusive rights", this should be properly capitalized; "Wheels Up flight a door" needs a comma; has there been any updates on the 2015 investigation?

QPQ: Red XN - QPQ needed
Overall: Symbol question.svg Prefer ALT2 to ALT1 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment – A user added the {{Advert}} template to the article on 24 August 2018 (diff), which remains atop the article as of this post (link). North America1000 13:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do others feel that the tag is appropriate. I am too close to the article to judge but I feel it was misplaced.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 23[edit]

Phonetics

  • ... that the study of phonetics began 2300 years ago with Pānini's description of voicing? Source: Kiparsky (1993) describes Pānini's theory of voicing, Caffrey (2017) says "Many linguistics experts credit a Sanskrit grammarian named Panini as the earliest proponent of phonetics."
  • Reviewed: Ladder hornsnails
  • Comment: I like the hook I've suggested, but I would gladly welcome suggestions for other hooks. It's a rather abstract topic, so it's somewhat difficult to come up with an interesting fact that uses the page name. For the current hook, it should be noted that Pānini described more than just voicing, but Kiparsky (1993) focused mostly on that and it makes the hook a bit hookier.

5x expanded by Wugapodes (talk). Self-nominated at 18:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Great job with this article! You just are missing QPQ. Catrìona (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that socio-phonetics studies how pronunciation signals membership in social groups, such as those defined by gender, sexuality, or race?
@Catrìona: I had reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Cerithideopsis scalariformis. I piped it so it probably didn't look like you were expecting, my apologies. Thank you for the hook suggestion, though I prefer my original proposal. The article doesn't talk about sociophonetics much (yet) so it's not referenced in the article technically, and I also plan to write that sociophonetics article soon so I'd rather save a sociophonetics hook for that. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Everything is in order but I'll withhold the check mark for the moment in case alternate hooks are suggested. Catrìona (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: BlueMoonset on their talk page rightly raised a problem with the current hook. I haven't come up with a much better hook, but am proposing a few alts that shuld more accurately reflect the sources.
ALT2: ... that the study of phonetics began as early as 2600 years ago with Sanskrit grammarians like Pānini who around 350 BCE described how sounds are voiced?
ALT3: ... that the Sanskrit grammarian Pānini provided a phonetic theory of voicing around 350 BCE?
I'd also be interested in what @BlueMoonset: thinks of the two. Any preferences between the two? I like ALT2 slightly more, but want to make sure it fully addresses the issues they raised on the talk page before it's run. I'm not sure if it's 2600 or 2500 years since 6th century BCE, I really am not the best at arithmetic, so please correct that if I'm still off. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 28[edit]

Seagull (gamer)

5x expanded by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) and StarfishCookie (talk). Nominated by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) at 05:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, neither nominator has been active over the past few weeks: TSC's last edit was two weeks ago, while other than a single edit on September 11, StarfishCookie's last activity was in August. As it is unlikely that either will be able to provide an immediate response to the article concern, add to the fact that the article feels incomplete without the issue being addressed, it is with regret that I mark this nomination for closure. If either editor returns to editing before this is closed and responds to the above comment, then the nomination may proceed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Narutolovehinata5: I didn't see anything about Seagull's early life (at least before he started gaming). I can look, but...
1) There's absolutely nothing in the DYK criteria that says an article has to be "complete". In fact, by focusing on new articles, there's an implicit expectation that the articles won't be perfect when they hit DYK.
2) There's no shortage of biography articles that are missing early life information.
So, I don't see why you would be failing this nomination. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Please read WP:DYKSG#D7. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that a biography missing information about a subject's life before he/she became notable would automatically disqualify on D7. If there is little reason to think that a subject's early life would not have received much or any coverage in reliable sources then I wouldn't a Wikipedia article lacking such information to be "incomplete." Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
True. I just really need clarification from the nominators if 1. a search for early life information was attempted, and 2. if such information exists at least online. Once these issues are clarified the nomination can still proceed. If no early life information is known, there's nothing that can be done about that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Yes, I did perform a search for the basic bibliographic information. The only thing I came up with that isn't in the article is that he grew up in the "pacific northwest" (this is from an Overwatch League promotional video). There's several sites with his birthday, but none are reliable sources (pro player settings sites, other wikis), and there's nothing else about early childhood, even city of birth, from a any source. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. Would it be fine to at least include the Pacific Northwest mention in the article then? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Der Nordstern

Der Nordstern 1918
Der Nordstern 1918

Created by Ultracobalt (talk). Self-nominated at 18:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting, on good sources. I can't see #5 in my country, but accept it AGF, no copyvio obvious. I think it should be "US" or "U.S.", no? How about the translation of the title in the hook? We also need (pictured). - In the article, please check German language vs. German-language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg with thanks for the changes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You are quick! I was just in the middle of doing the same repairs to the article and also added a reference. Now complete. Ultracobalt (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Per discussion at WP:ERRORS2, this hook had to be pulled before making it to the main page. There is a discrepancy between the source (which says "largest north of Minneapolis") and the hook, which says "one of the largest in the state". One does not necessarily imply the other. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Re-listed. Ultracobalt, would you address the concern when you have the chance? Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Ultracobalt hasn't edited since late September, or some time before the hook was pulled. @Gerda Arendt: as you are a German speaker, would you be willing to adopt this nomination or at least be able to help out in addressing the article issues? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but not today. Actually, this being a US paper, I don't think it needs much knowledge of German. Anybody could look for a hook, and I am not known for being successful at it, rather for approving one with problems. Sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
How about
ALT1: ... that the German-language weekly Der Nordstern (The North Star, pictured) in the U.S. state of Minnesota once claimed the largest circulation of any newspaper north of Minneapolis?
Jmar67 (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jmar67. I think that works. This really could have been fixed easily, although I think I was too tired also to make the tweak myself, so I blame myself. I'll put this back to prep shortly. Alex Shih (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 30[edit]

Battle of Meligalas

The cemetery for those executed at Meligalas.
The cemetery for those executed at Meligalas.
  • ... that, in the aftermath of the German withdrawal from the Peloponnese, Greek left-wing partisans defeated and summarily executed some 700 to 1,100 Nazi collaborators in the town of Meligalas? Source: This is a summary of the article's key points -- please see the lead section.
    • ALT1:... that until 1982, Greek government officials organized and participated in a commemoration service in Meligalas for Nazi collaborators who had been defeated and summarily executed in 1944? Source: "το 1982, όταν το υπ. Εσωτερικών γνωστοποιεί στο δήμο τον τερματισμό της συμμετοχής των επίσημων κρατικών αρχών" (English: "in 1982, when the Ministry of Internal Affairs communicated to the municipality the cessation of the participation of official state authorities" -- link)
    • ALT2:... that the bloody events of 1944 in Meligalas resurfaced in Greek political discourse as a rallying cry for anti-fascists against the far right? Source: "ο Μελιγαλάς αρχίζει έτσι μέσα στη δεκαετία του 2000 να διεκδικείται ρητά σαν συμβολικό θετικό υπόδειγμα μιας αποφασιστικής στάσης απέναντι στον ντόπιο φασισμό" (English: "starting in the mid-2000s Meligalas is explicitly reclaimed as a symbolic model of a decisive stance against local fascism" -- link)

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Nominated by Ashmedai 119 (talk) at 14:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Invalid status "?again" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"

Dear Catrìona, many thanks for your review of my nomination and for being very kind in the execution of your duties as a reviewer (For the record, this is my second DYK nomination, my first being this one). I understand your lack of enthusiasm for any of the proposed images and I also see where you 're coming from in suggesting the rephrasing of the primary hook of the nomination. It seems to me that the latter variation (i.e. ALT4) is to be preferred, in the sense that it provides (if only in the form of a hint) valuable information to its reader regarding the approximate time and the military and political context of this fierce confrontation between the ELAS partisans and the Battalionists. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Topaz War Relocation Center

  • ... that sixty-five percent of internees at the Topaz War Relocation Center were American-born citizens of Japanese immigrants? Source: "Sixty-five percent of the population [of Topaz] had been born in the United States, which is a higher proportion than in many Utah cities during the nineteenth century" Price of Prejudice by Leonard Arrington and others.
    • ALT1:... that an absence of normal family life contributed to teenage delinquency in the Topaz War Relocation Center? Source: "Part of the "delinquency" was a result of the breakdown of family life in camp. Parents whose roles were undercut by the internment were unable to control their children, who left the small rooms early in the morning and returned only to sleep. Almost everyone ate at long tables in the mess halls, and teenagers often sat with their friends; even the semblance of normal family life disappeared. The lack of privacy also made disciplining difficult." Jewel of the Desert

Improved to Good Article status by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 21:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Symbol confirmed.svg Article was elevated to GA on 29 August. Article appears to meet criteria stated at WP:DYKRULES and meets specifically criteria 1F. Suggested hooks are cited to reliable sources. Article appears to be within policy. QPQ has been met.
I suggest that the original hook be used but that a link to Nisei#American Nisei be included as well, thus reading
ALT2: "... that sixty-five percent of internees at the Topaz War Relocation Center were American-born citizens of Japanese immigrants? Source: "Sixty-five percent of the population [of Topaz] had been born in the United States, which is a higher proportion than in many Utah cities during the nineteenth century" Price of Prejudice by Leonard Arrington and others.
Utilizing the same source may I also suggest the following hook:
ALT3 "... that the majority of the interned Japanese Americans at Topaz War Relocation Center, in Utah, were from the San Francisco Bay Area? Source: "A similar distribution as made in the Bay area of California, where most inhabitants of Topaz resided before and after the war." Price of Prejudice by Leonard Arrington and others.
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks for the review! I think a link to Nisei is helpful. I think we need a separate reviewer for ALT3, since RightCowLeftCoast proposed it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 31[edit]

Shannon Evans

Shannon Evans
Shannon Evans

Created by Editorofthewiki (talk). Nominated by Runningibis (talk) at 16:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article created on 30 August, submitted one day later. Long enough. Neutral & no copyright issues. Fact from hook is included in source but is not immediately followed by an in-line citation. Otherwise sourced appropriately. QPQ completed. Suggest hook has boarderline appeal to a broad audience (who might not understand the significance of playing for a prep school). Fact isn't currently in article but the fact that mother liquidated (cashed out) her 401k might help spice this up and/or make clear why attending prep school was important (to qualify for NCAA scholarships). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion, you could also make note of the prep school being a Christian and Military institution. Flibirigit (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 1[edit]

Phạm Thận Duật

PhamThanDuat.jpg

5x expanded by Amyclam (talk). Nominated by Seazzy (talk) at 18:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC).

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Appears to be the nominator's first DYK nomination. Catrìona (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As I stated, the only thing needed here is correct tagging of the image on Commons. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Asian copyright law to tell you what the correct PD-Art tag is. Catrìona (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Amyclam can you figure out the copyright issue? -Seazzy (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ptolemy I Soter

Sources: Pomeroy, Sarah B. (1990). Women in Hellenistic Egypt. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780814322307. while Ptolemaic Egypt was a monarchy with a Greek ruling class. Redford, Donald B., ed. (2000). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195102345. Cleopatra VII was born to Ptolemy XII Auletes (80–57 BCE, ruled 55–51 BCE) and Cleopatra, both parents being Macedonian Greeks. Ptolemy I at Ancient History Encyclopedia.

Created/expanded by Векочел (talk). Self-nominated at 19:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New promotion to GA status verified. This appears to be the nominator's first DYK nomination, so no QPQ review of another DYK nomination is needed. Earwig found other sites that have copied from us, but no inappropriate copying in the other direction. However, to meet DYK standards (which are different from GA standards) we need a footnote giving a reliable source for the section "Fictional portrayals". Additionally, although the article hints at it (and of course it's true), it doesn't ever seem to explicitly say that he founded the Ptolemaic dynasty or that Cleopatra belonged to the same dynasty. For that matter the claim that his rank under Alexander was general, while stated explicitly in the lead, is neither sourced there nor expanded and sourced later; I'm surprised the GA review didn't complain about this, as it's a violation of MOS:LEAD (this time part of the GA rules) and in any case must also be sourced for DYK. The hook is a good one, but to use it the article needs to have a sentence or sentences containing the same claims, with a footnote on that exact sentence or sentences. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Julio Rodríguez (photographer)

  • ... that Mexican photographer Julio Rodríguez worked as a business manager, and rediscovered his passion for photography after traveling through Baja California? Source: link
  • Reviewed: TBA

Created by Jaespinoza (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment - @Jaespinoza: Can I suggest that you resolve the issue that has been tagged on the article as a prelude to somebody reviewing this nomination. You will also need to do your QPQ. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Cwmhiraeth:! Thanks for the note, can you give an advice about the tag? The article has been copy/edited already, but I do not know if I can remove the tag. I am working on my QPQ. Cheers. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the tag because it did not seem appropriate to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Ready for review. Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Interesting life and art, on good sources, Spanish sources acceted AGF. - I am not happy with the hook, can you say one or two things? Like photo book and exhibitions? - We also need a qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Letter of Ali ibn Abi Talib to Malik al-Ashtar

  • ... that the letter authored by Ali, the first Shia Imam, to Malik al-Ashtar, governor of Egypt, includes a model for governing based on justice for every place and every time? [8][9][10]

Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 08:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: Symbol question.svg The article is long and new enough. However, I prefer to ask you resolve the grammatical issues and do the required technical edits (mostly removing extra spaces and adding them where ever needed), before making any further comments. Let me know when you're finished with it. --Mhhossein talk 14:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: thanks for review the DYK. As you nominated to grammatical issues, I asked GorgeCustersSabre help me and he do the copy edit.I think during this time I get oppurtunity to remove other issues. Regards! Saff V. (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have systematically copy-edited this article and checked the citations to ensure that they are accurate. I'm now content that this article is strong enough to remain on Wikipedia without any distinct concerns. Best regards,George Custer's Sabre (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. However, I think the article still needs to be checked against accuracy of the materials. For instance, I doubt if "In his letter, Ali asked the people of Egypt to follow the direction of Malik." Check the source once again. --Mhhossein talk 17:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: You are right! I campare this two sources (1 and 2) a part of the adventure has been missed!Imam wrote two letter, one for Malic and another for other commander and the sentence that you nominated it is seen in the letter that Imam wrote to another commander, but the exact name of the commander is unknown. All in all I prefer to remove such as challenging sentence.Also I check the article with refrecences and try to solve such as problem. Saff V. (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 3[edit]

Hijabophobia

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 18:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Is this a neologism? Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah: A neologism whose product is utilized by the multiple reliable sources. So what? --Mhhossein talk 08:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 4[edit]

Sociophonetics

  • ... that a sociophonetic study found young boys lower the pitch of their voice even before puberty to seem more masculine? It's in Holmes and Wilson Chapter 7, I was viewing the Ebook on google books which doesn't have page numbers (it can be verified there), but I will look at the hard copy once I'm back at work in a week or so.

Created by Wugapodes (talk). Self-nominated at 07:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

Ana María Campos

The Ana María Monument, in a square on a street both named after her, in Maracaibo
The Ana María Monument, in a square on a street both named after her, in Maracaibo
  • ... that Venezuelan freedom fighter Ana María Campos died from torture injuries in the shallows of Lake Maracaibo, five years after supporting the revolutionary victory there? Source: 1 "murió Ana María, algunos historiadores afirman que fue bañándose en las aguas el Lago de Maracaibo al sufrir un ataque de epilepsia, producto del trauma físico que le dejó la tortura [...] presenciar como sus sueños de libertad se hacían realidad con la victoria de los patriotas en la Batalla Naval del Lago de Maracaibo" (English: "Ana María died, historians affirm that she was bathed in the waters of Lake Maracaibo and suffered an epileptic attack, the product of phyiscal trauma as a result of her torture [...] she was present as her dreams of freedom came true with the victory of the Venezuelans at the Battle of Lake Maracaibo")
  • Reviewed: (3rd nom)
  • Comment: I don't have strong feelings about keeping the image with the hook, though it does establish her legacy.

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 11:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was new enough when nominated. No close paraphrasing was found. The hook is interesting, and while it's spread over at least two separate sections of the article, they're both cited inline. Spanish-language sources accepted in good faith. No QPQ is needed for this nomination. Only one issue: although most of the article is sourced, the "Canción de primavera" section isn't. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Kaiser Franz Joseph I-class cruiser

Kaiserin Elisabeth on 8 December 1892
Kaiserin Elisabeth on 8 December 1892

? Source: "By December 1892, when he boarded the Kaiserin Elisabeth, Francis Ferdinand was badly in need of the escape and diversion of foreign travel...Their route went from Trieste via the Suez Canal to Ceylon, then Bombay, where Francis Ferdinand and his personal entourage disembarked for a tour of India. The Kaiserin Elisabeth met Francis Ferdinand at Calcutta, and the voyage proceeded by way of the Dutch East Indies to Sydney, where the archduke again left the ship in order to tour the Australian outback. From Sydney the cruise continued through the islands of the southwest Pacific, then to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. The Kaiserin Elisabeth left Francis Ferdinand at the end of his Japanese tour and went on to show the flag in East Asian Waters before returning home by way of the Suez Canal later in 1893. The archduke continued his circumnavegation of the globe...In October 1893, he arrived in Vienna from Le Harve, to be welcomed home by Francis Joseph." (Sondhaus 1994, pp. 124-125)

  • ALT1:... that the failure of the Kaiser Franz Joseph I-class cruisers contributed to the Austro-Hungarian Navy's decision to construct a series of battleships in the early 20th century? Source: "...the support for his "Jeune École" fleet faded away and Austria-Hungary returned to capital sip construction with the building of the Habsburg class battleships, the first of which was laid down in 1899." (Sieche 1995, p. 32) "...the Pola group's emphasis on battleships over cruisers repudiated the Jeune Ecole philosophy." (Sondhaus 1994, p. 102)
  • Reviewed: Led Zeppelin (album)

Moved to mainspace by White Shadows (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

Puisand Lai

Puisand Lai
Puisand Lai
  • ... that Canadian national wheelchair basketball player Puisand Lai (pictured) was rated number seven in the world in girls' wheelchair tennis, in 2017? Source: [11]

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new, long enough, and within policy... hook size is fine, but its content should be more interesting... QPQ done and image is licensed correctly. Runningibis (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Hawkeye7: I have struck the hook as I don't see how being ranked #7 in the world is interesting to a broad audience. Perhaps something else more interesting abpout her life can be said? I see she's also participated in other sports: perhaps a hook about that could work instead? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought it was unusual because she's primarily a basketball player. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have unstruck the hook (diff), because I think it's adequately appealing to a broad enough audience. North America1000 13:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Élodie Tessier

Élodie Tessier
Élodie Tessier
  • ... that Canadian national wheelchair basketball player Élodie Tessier (pictured) is only 3 feet 11 inches (1.19 m) tall? Source: "Malgré ses 3’11, Élodie est aujourd’hui une joueuse de basket accomplie" ([12])

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hi Hawkeye7, review follows: article moved to mainspace 4 September; By my count (1482) it is marginally below the minimum length for DYK, though this could be readily remedied; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; image is freely licensed by uploader and works well at 100px; hook fact is interesting, cited in the article and checks out to the French language source. A teeny bit of expansion of the article and this one should be good to go - Dumelow (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    Done. Now at 1,593 characters. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks Hawkeye7. One query I have is should the article be at Élodie Tessier (with the accent)? - Dumelow (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
After reading WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS a few times, I decided to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would dropping "wheelchair" from the hook be considered misleading the reader? I think it'd make for a rather interesting hook. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I love misleading hooks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I recommend not dropping wheelchair from the hook because this is about a wheelchair basketball athlete, not a basketball athlete - two different sports. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Not according to FIBA, which regards it as a different event in the same sport. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 5[edit]

Imaqtpie

  • ... that professional gamer Imaqtpie earns over US$2 million annually playing League of Legends on Twitch.tv? Source: "According to Santana's management company Everyday Influencers, this huge collective audience generates $2 million a year in earnings for him, and that's before you factor in any sponsorship money. " (Rolling Stone, archived from the original)
    • ALT1:... that professional League of Legends player Imaqtpie was married in a t-shirt and shorts? Source: "They were married in a courthouse, and in what would have been less of a surprise to his fans, Imaqtpie got married in a t-shirt and shorts." (Daily Mail)
  • Reviewed: Exempt from QPQ.
  • Comment: Alternate hooks accepted.

Created by Derek M (talk). Self-nominated at 18:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

Cecilia García Arocha

  • Reviewed: (4th nom, but have reviewed some)
  • Comment: I'm trying to improve the references on the page. Hopefully by the time this is reviewed.

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

Symbol delete vote.svg While the article meets length and newness requirements, the DYK nom fails for several reasons:
  • The article currently fails DYK nom guidelines which require "a minimum of one citation per paragraph."
  • The reference used to support the nom is not found in the article.
  • In addition, the domain for the first references is not online and the second is 404. Even if the links were working, I wonder if they might be primary instead of secondary sources.
  • If the article otherwise qualified, the hook is not very interesting -- it could be improved by including mention of the university's history, founding, or prominence in the country.
  • The nominator, despite having added the article to DYK on September 5, has not yet named per QPQ another DYK nom they have reviewed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg @Btphelps: I think this was only the nominator's fourth nomination so no QPQ was needed at the time. With that said, I'll leave a message on their talk page informing them of your comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I was not aware of the requirement for QPQ not applying to new editors. The other issues still remain however. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I do have to note that the nominator has not edited in over a week, and did not respond to a request for comment that I left on their talk page. I will leave them another message requesting them to return as soon as possible; if there's no response within the next few days, I will mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on September 6[edit]

O clap your hands (Rutter)

  • ... that a reviewer came to like John Rutter's anthem O clap your hands better decades after he first found the jollity of its beginning "a bit relentless"? Source: [13]

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. The hook is fine but I would suggest a slight rewording of the hook by putting "better" before "like" than before "decades". QPQ was fulfilled as well. Other than my suggestion for the hook I think this is good to go. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
You mean this?
ALT1: * ... that a reviewer came to better like John Rutter's anthem O clap your hands decades after he first found the jollity of its beginning "a bit relentless"?
Precisely. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Mufti Nemat

  • ... that Afghan militant Mufti Nemat has claimed that he wants others to accept his ideology "with their hearts, not by force" despite having previously waged a violent insurgency and possibly committed numerous war crimes? Source: "At their peak, the ISIS fighters in northern Afghanistan numbered as many as 500 followers of Qari Hekmatullah, until he was killed in an American airstrike in April. Mr. Rahman and Mr. Nemat, who are brothers-in-law, then emerged as the leaders of the group. [...] 'We want other people to accept our ideas with their hearts, not by force,' Mr. Nemat said. 'There is no need to force people to accept us.' [...] Many of the Islamic State's crimes are well documented in their own Facebook and WhatsApp posts, with videos of them burning opponents alive, stoning people to death, training children as fighters, and shooting bound prisoners." (Source: Are ISIS Fighters Prisoners or Honored Guests of the Afghan Government?)

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 08:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Oh, sorry! I did not notice that I had already used that QPQ. I will add a new one tomorrow. Applodion (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added a new QPQ. Applodion (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you. Ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure this hook is acceptable under the content rules, since it focuses primarily on negative aspects of a living person. To be clear, I'm not defending Nemat or his actions, or suggesting that the cited source is not accurate, only noting that the hook as written doesn't appear to confirm to the DYK rules. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • We could leave out the part about the war crimes, as he denies them. The rest of the hook, namely that he waged an insurgency despite claming be be peaceful, is undisputable, however, and is not necessarily negative. Applodion (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 7[edit]

Black Orchid (comic book)

  • Comment: Feel free to suggest alt hooks

Created by TheJoebro64 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 8[edit]

Donte Ingram

Donte Ingram
Donte Ingram

Improved to Good Article status by Editorofthewiki (talk). Nominated by Runningibis (talk) at 01:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 10[edit]

Three Sisters (opera)

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC).

  • @Gerda Arendt: Here's my review. I also changed the ALT0 link so it linked directly to the article. epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - The article says that the three sisters are sung by countertenors, but doesn't say the composer wanted it. This isn't a really big deal, but I think the wording needs clarification.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, good catch. I found that section, and didn't change it when expanding. Will do, but please have patience, going to travel and not yet prepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I found a good new source, printed today, about the countertenors: [14], in the article. Will take care of the cast thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 11[edit]

Wisconsin School (diplomatic history)

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg As a social scientist myself, I don't think this is a good hook. It features two terms that aren't really well-known to laymen, and while they appear to be connected, the connection isn't really clear in the hook, nor would the connection be clear to those not familiar with the field. A new, more broadly-acceptable hook may need to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the comment. Yes, this hook was deliberately intended to be short and mysterious, in order to get people to think "What on earth is this talking about?" and click through to find out. It's meant to be "hooky", to use the term from WP:DYKHOOK. The alternative would be something like:
ALT1: ... that while sometimes allied, the "Wisconsin School" of diplomatic history and the New Left embodied different strains of thought during the 1960s?
If you prefer that one, it's fine with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 12[edit]

Bill Hines (customizer)

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 07:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 13[edit]

Theater Bremen

  • ... that Theater Bremen, a state theatre in Bremen, runs Moks, a division for young people? Source: several

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Gerda Arendt: A full review is to follow, but I'm afraid I have to reject this hook. It's boring (theatres having divisions for youths is not uncommon or quirky), and "Moks" is too obscure of a term to appeal to a broad audience. A new hook is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I won't argue, working on opera house of the year award in 2007. Was travelling, have a cold, and off to rehearsal. Just letting you know that I didn't forget you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Theater Bremen, the state theatre of Bremen for opera, plays, dance and young people, was selected as opera house of the year in 2007?
ALT2: ... that the style of Theater Bremen was internationally known as Bremer Stil from 1962, created by stage directors such as Peter Stein, Peter Zadek and Rainer Werner Fassbinder? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't like ALT2 because of its inaccessibility to those unfamiliar with opera music. ALT1 possibly works, but the body that gave it the opera house of the year award is German and I'm not sure if non-German opera houses are considered for the prize. I'm willing to go with ALT1 but it might need some work. Also, not really sure if "opera, plays, dance, and young people" is necessary here, simply "that Theater Bremen, the state threatre of Bremen, was..." or even simply "that Theater Bremen was selected..." could be a better option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
ALT2 opera??? - Play, has nothing to do with opera, and the directors became internationally known, - ashort at their articles should tell. ALT2 is more specific for the theatre, as many houses were named opera house of the year, including not-German ones (we have a link to see that). I thought we'd need to explain that Theater Bremen is not equal to an opera house, but that opera is only one of four Sparten - don't know a proper English word. In the 20th century, play was the focus, in the 21st, opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Jos Canale

Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC).

Professor John Perkins’ Review of Engineering Skills

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 19:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 14[edit]

Willie Borsch

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 07:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

Raúl Meza Ontiveros

  • ... that when Mexican suspected drug lord Raúl Meza Ontiveros was arrested, the police discovered he was storing 384 kilograms (847 lb) of cocaine?

Source: [Spanish]: El 27 de mayo de 1997, Torres Félix fue aprehendido en un operativo conjunto por el Ejército y agentes de la Policía Judicial Federal, en posesión de 348 kilos de cocaína, los cuales almacenaban en una bodega que servía de centro de avituallamiento para los recorridos de lanchas rápidas participantes del trasiego del alcaloide desde Colombia ... fue capturado en aquella fecha junto con sus cómplices: Manuel Meza Zamudio, Ramón López Serrano y Raúl Meza Ontiveros..." / [English]: On May 27, 1997, Torres Felix was apprehended in a joint operation by the Army and agents of the Federal Judicial Police, in possession of 348 kilos of cocaine, which were stored in a warehouse that served as a refreshment center for the tours of fast boats participating in the transfer of the alkaloid from Colombia ... He was captured on that date along with his accomplices: Manuel Meza Zamudio, Ramón López Serrano and Raúl Meza Ontiveros ..." (Proceso)

  • Template:Did you know nominations/Long March (South Sudan)
  • Comment: Subject is dead, BLP does not apply. Though subject was released from prison, the court did not deny the cocaine seizure happened. He was released due to the government's inability to correctly present the case without inconsistencies. Alternate hooks are welcomed. Most sources are in Spanish.

Moved to mainspace by MX (talk). Self-nominated at 03:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Recommending ALT1, below. Catrìona (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm cool with that. New reviewer requested for the hook tweak. MX (✉ • ✎) 00:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington State Route 546

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 07:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article was expanded 5x on Sept 14, prose is plenty long enough, and the article is within policy. The hook is under 200 characters and is interesting to a broad audience. SounderBruce, just let me know when the QPQ is done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 15[edit]

Bill Golden

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 07:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Trekphiler: This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral, I have removed the only bit of close paraphrasing I observed and have spent nearly an hour cleaning up the referencing. No QPQ is needed here as the nominator has one previous DYK. Neither hook will do, ALT1 because it mentions Chrysler's "only AHRA win in 1962" while the article mentions "Chrysler's only Nationals win" and the source states "only Chrysler driver to win a class at the Winternationals that year". I prefer the original hook as being more interesting, but the source does not state that the vehicle was "drag racing's first wheelstanding truck". And did the vehicle actually race, or did it become a demonstration vehicle? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Little Red Wagon was drag racing's first wheelstanding anything, so the first hook is accurate; the trouble appears to be all the sources presume the readers know this already. If the hook is reworded to remove that specific claim, would that do it? Since it appears I overstated the Nationals claim, I've removed it. And yes, only an exhibition racer, as you'd expect. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
To confirm "first wheelstander", see here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Dorsey Crowe

Dorsey Crowe
Dorsey Crowe

Moved to mainspace by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 03:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment: I don't know why it isn't linking to the page. In case I shouldn't added any Wiki formatting the page is here. My great apologies John M Wolfson (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Formatting fixed. — Maile (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Not reviewing; just a casual observation.) With just a quick glance at the article, ALT2 does not appear to be supported. It mentions just one plane crash, and does not say where he landed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
There was only one plane crash, I meant that he survived both a plane crash and a car accident. However, the source I gave didn't specifically mention that he was thrown through the roof of the car, but this https://www.newspapers.com/image/355150741/ does. Hope that helps! John M Wolfson (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah. I read it as saying that he had the extraordinarily unlikely experience of being in two plane crashes, both times landing through a car roof. Maybe it's just me. I'll leave it to you and the reviewer to decide if and how it should be reworded. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would accept AL2, but I'd like a second opinion since I'm not a DYK regular. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your feedback. I noticed you marked this as reviewed. Does this mean that there won't be more people coming in to review this? (This is my first DYK). -John M Wolfson (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 16[edit]

Roberta Leighton (drag racer)

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough at the time of the nomination, and meets the length requirements. The hook is interesting and cited inline. No copyright violations were found. However, I have several concerns about the article. Firstly, the article appears to only use a single source ([15]), which is repeated 16 times (multiple uses of one source are allowed, but there are better ways to do it, such as with named references to prevent redundancy). Secondly, the article's paragraphs are too short; I'd suggest combining several of the paragraphs into just a few, perhaps grouping them according to periods in her life. Finally, as the nominator already had more than 5 DYK credits at the time of this nomination, a QPQ is required. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Paragraphs are short because they have to be, by the rule of paragraphs: if you change the subject, you need a new paragraph. I used one source because there aren't many articles online about 40yr old drag racing events, & I don't have 40yr old back issues of National Dragster, or I'd have used them in the first place. I'd merge the footnotes, but I am so bad at it, I'm bound to screw it up. And I have looked at a couple of nominated DYKs, & commented; if that doesn't qualify as a formal review, or meet the QPQ standard, do what you want with this; if it doesn't make the Main Page, I won't miss it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Doing a QPQ is really easy; all you have to do is link one of those reviews you commented here. That's pretty much it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

CadZZilla (custom car)

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 10:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

Dick Megugorac

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 10:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I've fixed the formatting on your nomination. However, the hook is not interesting (lots of people have nicknames) and the subject may not be notable—in fact, I've nominated it for deletion. Catrìona (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "the subject may not be notable" You really are clueless, aren't you? Magoo was doing custom jobs before Boyd was even born, & he has a page. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I would like to remind you of the no personal attacks policy. Calling other editors "clueless" is not kosher, and the reason you cited above is actually not a valid argument for the notability of an article. If sufficient sources are added to the article to demonstrate notability, I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Catrìona (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s

One member of Carla's Dreams pictured in 2018.
One member of Carla's Dreams pictured in 2018.

Created/expanded by Cartoon network freak (talk). Self-nominated at 10:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 17[edit]

Dave Roller

Created/expanded by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

List of Germans convicted of war crimes committed in Italy during World War II

  • ... that Germany refuses to extradite Germans who committed war crimes in Italy during World War II? 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, due to Germany's refusal to extradite war criminals, Italy has tried several in absentia? 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)
    • ALT2:... that former Nazis in the West German government helped war criminals evade justice for massacres in Italy during World War II?
    • ALT3:... that Italy has avoided prosecuting Germans for war crimes in Italy during World War II due to fears that its own citizens would be charged with war crimes?
    • ALT4:... that most Germans who committed war crimes in Italy during World War II never faced justice?
    • ALT5: ... that Germany refuses to extradite war criminals to Italy?

Created by Turismond (talk). Nominated by Catrìona (talk) at 09:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Umm ... you need to quote and link the sources per the instructions you left in. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Gilles Courteau

5x expanded by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 00:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

Leo Holzer

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 18[edit]

Ed McCulloch

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 05:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC).

Responsories (Reger)

Max Reger
Max Reger
  • ... that Max Reger (pictured) composed 20 Responsories in English for use in the American Lutheran church, first published in Philadelphia in 1914? Source: several
  • Reviewed: to come La Flor
  • Comment: we could add to the quirkyness by saying that he didn't speak English, and/or that he was Catholic. Wordsmiths welcome!

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 12:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC).

  • New enough, created 7 days before nomination. Prose length of 2.3k exceeds requirement of 1.5k, so long enough. Article written in neutral manner, and each sentence/paragraph is supported by inline citations. No close paraphrasing or other copyvio found by Earwig or myself. There are significant matches, but that is for the names of the movements, (and these are from 1911 so they'd be public domain in any case. Note that these movement names are not counted toward the prose length.) The hook caught my attention because it is odd that German Reger would write for an American Lutheran congregation. Maybe it's a bit specialized, but I think it's hooky. I would not object to proposed ALTS mentioning that he spoke no English. I was able to confirm both claims (written in 1911 for Lutheran congregation, published in 1914) though the inline citations found directly after. Hook written in neutral manner. QPQ complete. Image copyright status is clear, and in the public domain. Recommended for mainspace. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Mark Judge (writer)

Created by E.M.Gregory (talk) and Sagecandor (talk). Nominated by Sagecandor (talk) at 22:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article has been nominated by a topic-banned and blocked user. Pending discussion here. --Pudeo (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Adipati Dolken

  • ... that the Indonesian actor Adipati Dolken adopted his stage name from the villa where he stayed while on vacation in Puncak? Source: [Roughly translated] "[W]ouldn't you know it, [...] Adipati Dolken is not Adipati's real name[...]! There is a unique origin behind that name. Adipati's real name is Adipati Koesmadji. In his early career, [...] he was considering assuming a new name. It so happened then that Adipati was staying at a villa in Puncak. 'Dolken is a Dutch surname. [The Dolken person] owns the villa where I stayed. Somehow, I'm fond of that name, so I adopt it,' recounts the German-descended [?] guy." (Gadis by Femina Group)
    • ALT1:... that despite his Dutch last name, Indonesian actor Adipati Dolken is actually of German descent?
  • ALT2: ... that at the age of 22, Indonesian actor Adipati Dolken won the Piala Citra (Citra Award) for Best Supporting Actor at the 2013 Indonesian Film Festival?
  • Comment: This is my first self-nomination, so... I'm open to any opinions/suggestions.

Created/expanded by Angga (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 19[edit]

Ryder Jackson

  • ... that some Home and Away viewers praised the heterosexual character Ryder Jackson for his positive reaction to a gay kiss? Source: "Viewers turned to social media after the episode aired to express their reactions to the emotional moment. Many were supportive of Williams' portrayal of Ty and the way Ryder (Lukas Radovich) reacted on-screen." [19]
    • ALT1:... that Home and Away actor Lukas Radovich found his character's sensitive side interesting to play? Source: "Showing a bit of his sensitive side and a bit of his caring side has been really interesting for me to play." [20]

Created by Raintheone (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC).

Carol Cox

Created/expanded by Trekphiler (talk). Self-nominated at 00:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

Review

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - The first hook fact doesn't seem to be stated clearly in the main source. The second hook fact, ALT1, looks best but I'm not seeing a clear inline citation and I'd like to be sure that we're getting the claim right – is winning a class the same as winning a trophy?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Andrew D. (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"The first hook fact doesn't seem to be stated clearly in the main source." It is: "Just a year before Cox’s breakthrough, women weren’t even allowed to compete at NHRA national events." The second is a bit less clear, since AFAIK, there wasn't an actual trophy awarded in the class, but: "first woman to ever win a trophy of any kind at an NHRA national event" & "Cox won her class, S/SA". Both are cited to the NHRA.com link; all 3 quotes are from there. Clearer? (Personally, I prefer the first hook: it's a bigger deal, & it's less ambiguous. The second has a cool factor, tho: she drove the winning car to the track.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:26 & 02:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 20[edit]

Chalfont Viaduct

The bridge over the M25
The bridge over the M25

Created by Cnbrb (talk). Self-nominated at 12:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article had been created in the time specified by the nominator and, while very bare-bones and short, it has an adequate number of characters to satisfy the criteria; about 2,470. The nominator, Cnbrb, has had only four DYK credits as of writing, so a QPQ is not needed. There seems to be a lack of a consistent citation style, however, from bare URLs to Harvard citations. Some citations lack basic information, such as {{Cite web}} authors and {{Cite book}} page numbers. I like the premise of the latter part of the first proposed hook, and stress that we don't need two premises in one hook; we can cut out the subjectively less interesting factoid about who designed the bridge and when it was built, and instead focus on the fame and graffiti aspects. My proposal would be as follows,
ALT2: ...that the Chalfont Viaduct over the M25 motorway in England is famous for its graffiti? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. The bare URL citation was added subsequently by another editor, now fixed, along with some other references. BBC News articles never provide a byline, hence lack of author info. Cnbrb (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The nomination meets the criteria as specified by Philip; however, I'd prefer to actually mention the tagline itself ie: ALT3: ...that the Chalfont Viaduct on the M25 motorway was famous for its graffiti slogan "Give Peas A Chance"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS divisions involved in war crimes in Italy

Created by Turismond (talk). Nominated by Catrìona (talk) at 03:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC).

Exhibition of Australian Art in London

‘The purple noon's transparent might’
‘The purple noon's transparent might’
  • ... that Arthur Streeton's 1896 painting 'The purple noon's transparent might' (pictured) won critical acclaim at the 1898 Exhibition of Australian Art in London? Source: "Such a landscape as Mr. Arthur Streeton's 'Purple Noon's Transparent Light,' with its admirable drawing and aerial perspective, and its splendid force of colour, would hold its own in any London gallery" The Argus, quoting The Studio.

Created by HappyWaldo (talk). Self-nominated at 02:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

  • HappyWaldo, I corrected the painting title to remove apostrophes and be in uppercase—can you confirm that is correct? Also, is there a reason for "might" vs "light" there? Did the newspaper run a typo? (I want to confirm that there's not a second similarly named painting before we all get egg on our faces!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The correct title is ‘The purple noon's transparent might’, with the apostrophes, as the painting takes its title from Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Stanzas Written in Dejection, Near Naples". See the National Gallery of Victoria's page for the painting. It is certainly an error on the part of the newspaper. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@HappyWaldo: Fascinating! Thanks for the confirmation, and I've re-re-corrected the painting title above. One more query: would you consider this alternate hook? "... that no other "major survey" of Australian art in London has come close to reaching the level of female representation achieved by the 1898 Exhibition of Australian Art in London?" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I did consider going with a hook about the level of female representation, but since it's an art page, it seemed fitting to have an accompanying image. I went with the Streeton because many critics called it a highlight of the show. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@HappyWaldo: Gotcha—I totally get that motivation. Although I don't think it's necessarily the best hook in the article, I'm happy to Symbol confirmed.svg approve this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg None of the main points of WP:DYKR have been addressed in the review above: I checked and the article is new and long enough, A lone, standalone sentence was not sourced, which technically qualifies as its own paragraph. I corrected this by adding a source to verify the content (diff), so this is okay now. Is the content of the hook properly verified in the article by the source in the article? Does the article contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing? Also it appears that the nominator needs to perform a QPQ review before this can move forward, as per the results of QPQ check. North America1000 05:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
While it would be better to cite The Studio directly, I can't access any online British newspaper archive (from what I can tell, they all require a paid membership). The Argus was "considered to be the general Australian newspaper" of the time, so I think it's reliable and gives an accurate assessment of The Studio's review. I will review another DYK shortly. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 21[edit]

The Witch's Promise

  • ... that "The Witch's Promise" is the only Jethro Tull single to feature a Mellotron? Source: "and played piano and Mellotron on "The Witch's Promise" Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick and A Passion Play: Inside Two Long Songs, Tim Smolko IUP p. 9 "Tull are a bit of an odd one on the Mellotron front; they toyed with using one a handful of times, then gave it up as a bad job. First heard on their early 1970 single, Witches Promise" Planet Mellotron
  • Reviewed: Doom Island
  • Comment: Was previously deleted at AfD; this is a complete rewrite. (In anticipation of a follow up question, we think Planet Mellotron is a reliable source for this specific claim; the author Andy Thompson is name checked on the Streetly Electronics website, in Sound on Sound and (particularly) in Nick Awde's Mellotron book as being a Mellotron expert. It's possible to verify the claim by going through all of Jethro Tull's back catalogue and cross-checking for what is credited for 'Tron and what isn't; this is simpler.)

Created by Ritchie333 (talk) and Martinevans123 (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 09:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC).

Masters of the Sun (album)

Moved to mainspace by PhilipTerryGraham (talk). Self-nominated at 15:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - Mentioned in lead, but not cited inline.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Just that one item. SounderBruce 06:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I've resolved it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 22[edit]

Barbara P. McCarthy

Created by 2018 S Classics (talk) and Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 22:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. I am unable to find the hook facts in the article. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright/close paraphrasing issues. A QPQ has been done. I assume the "Doctor of Letters" in 1980 was an honorary degree? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Disappearing World

  • ... that the producer of the TV series Disappearing World acknowledged that the episodes "more often reflect a changing world than a disappearing one"? Source: quote from "Disappearing World: A Guide for Anthropologists," article in Passages: A Chronicle of the African Humanities reproduced at University of Michigan Publishing

Created by Rigadoun (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

Worth It (TV series)

  • ... that viewers have watched 1.5 billion minutes of BuzzFeed's Worth It in 2018 alone? Source: [21]

Created/expanded by The ed17 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New and long enough, a copyvio check reveals no problems, hook content is interesting and is verified with a citation to a reliable source in the article. Matters to be resolved: 1) The Episodes section has no sources, 2) QPQ needs to be completed. North America1000 08:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @The ed17: I don't want to be a stickler, but Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary is an opinion essay, whereas per D2 of the DYK Supplementary guidelines states, "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." I'm not sure that the first table in the Episodes section could be considered as a plot summary, because it's not. Rather, it's a list. Also, the airing dates in that first episodes box are not sourced anywhere else in the article. Furthermore, the external links you added to the article with all of the YouTube links could potentially violate WP:NOTDIR. North America1000 18:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I mean, I could convert it all to citation templates, but functionally it'd be the same thing—taking airing dates and credits straight from the linked videos. That's exactly why plot summaries aren't required to have citations. (Also, I didn't add the tables, a new user did. ;-) ) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) Also, the Worth It: Lifestyle Episodes section has no sources as well. The problem is, when you finish your QPQ, if I were to then just say, "oh well, I guess it's fine", another user can then come along and state how 1) the review was in error and 2) that the article doesn't qualify without some sources in these sections. Seems easier just to add some sources. North America1000 18:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 23[edit]

Waffen-SS veterans in post-war Germany

Moved to mainspace by Turismond (talk). Nominated by Catrìona (talk) at 05:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 24[edit]

Mary Paton Ramsay

  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Honestly I'm not sure if the hook works considering neither person seems to be well-known. A new hook might need to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I'm not sure I understand the objection on this. Very few of the people listed at DYK are household names. That's one of the attractions of DYK. I think word combination of "argue; medieval, mysticism" makes this a bit more "hooky" than the average DYK hook. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, Donne is one of England's most well-known poets, in a country not short of notable poets. Edwardx (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I see. Maybe I should have said that neither appear to be well-known "outside of the U.K.". In any case, I still think the hook needs to be rephrased somewhat and it's still borderline interesting since poetry has been known to be influenced by many kinds of things. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Our own article says "He is considered the pre-eminent representative of the metaphysical poets". I have added an alt and will add the QPQ shortly so it can be reviewed. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesuit Community Cemetery (Georgetown University)

  • ... that the Jesuit Community Cemetery at Georgetown University was established in 1808 but relocated in 1854? Source: "The cemetery was actually established in 1808..." and "The Jesuit cemetery was laid out in its present location...in June 1854." (link)

Created by Ergo Sum (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC).

Mississippi Health Project

Created by Nepaxt (talk). Self-nominated at 18:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - ?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg This article is looking pretty good, but it needs to be a little better referenced before I can sign off on it. There are a few short paragraphs that do not have a single citation, and each of these needs to have at least one. Also, the hook and the alternate (which are otherwise great) need to be cited, at least in the article itself if not (ideally) also cited in this nomination page. I certainly don't mean to nitpick; once these minor referencing issues are resolved, I'll be extremely happy to pass this nomination. It is a very interesting article, and I really enjoyed reading it! Thanks for your hard work. Michael Barera (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 25[edit]

Wilhelm Kempf (bishop)

Relief bust of Wilhelm Kempf
Relief bust of Wilhelm Kempf

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

Apotheosis (film)

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Hurricane response

  • ... that hurricane responders face hazards from floodwater such as chemical and biological contaminants and electrocution? Source: [22] pp. 7, 14

Created by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 26[edit]

Francis Hews

  • ... that in 1800, reviewers of Francis Hews' writings weren't sure whether he should be sent to "Bridewell for correction, or to Bedlam for a cure"?
  • Reviewed: To be done
  • Comment: one day late, hope that's OK

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Tronvillain (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 08:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts

Charles Godfrey Leland
Charles Godfrey Leland
  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 27[edit]

Marienstatt Abbey

Marienstatt Abbey
Marienstatt Abbey
  • ... that the the Gothic church of Cistercian Marienstatt Abbey (pictured), consecrated in 1212, has been a parish church from 1831, escaping demolition? Source: several
  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Ledumahadi

  • ... that the 200 million years old dinosaur Ledumahadi was the largest land animal to have ever lived when it first evolved, weighing 12 tonnes?
  • Reviewed: Second nomination, exemption.

Created by Lusotitan (talk). Self-nominated at 22:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Dennis Albaugh

1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Convertible
1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Convertible
  • ... that Dennis Albaugh owns "probably" the best collection of Chevy convertibles ('57 Bel Air pictured) in the US? Source: " 'He's got a fabulous collection,' said Murl Randall, 83, a Chevrolet historian and collector from Houghton Lake, Mich., who is known as Pinky. 'It's probably the best assemblage of convertible Chevys in the country.' " ([24])
  • 'Alt1 that Dennis Albaugh has rounded-up "probably" the best collection of Chevy convertibles ('57 Bel Air pictured) in the US?
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Added Alt - he made his money from a generic version of the pesticide Roundup. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Francis D. Pastorius, Edward E. Holloway

Created by Coemgenus (talk). Self-nominated at 16:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg These two articles are new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and the circumstances explained in one of the articles. The articles are neutral and I detected no copyright/close paraphrasing issues. One QPQ review has been done and another is needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Tania Tetlow

  • Reviewed: This is still my second nomination, so I'm pretty sure QPQ isn't necessary for me.
  • Comment: To clarify, LXA43 was the author of the page, who created it as this revision, while I expanded the prose size by roughly 22 times.

Created/expanded by LXA43 (talk) and SkyGazer 512 (talk). Nominated by SkyGazer 512 (talk) at 16:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

  • More concise ALT1 added. Edwardx (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Stylophora pistillata, Stylophora madagascarensis

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 08:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Robert of Nantes

  • ... that Robert of Nantes was "an old and venerable man aged eighty years" when he was imprisoned along with Louis IX of France during the Seventh Crusade? Source: Caroline Smith, ed., Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades (Penguin, 2008), p. 235.

Created by Adam Bishop (talk). Self-nominated at 01:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Psalm 133

Leonard Bernstein in 1971
Leonard Bernstein in 1971
  • Reviewed: to come Isaac I Komnenos
  • Comment: We'll expand Psalm 131 as well but probably will not make 5*.

5x expanded by Yoninah (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 20:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC).

Lamaria

Created by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 14:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

Vorombe

fossi femurs of Vorombe
fossi femurs of Vorombe
  • ... that weighing on average around 650 kilograms (1,430 lb), the Madagascan fossil bird Vorombe (femur pictured) was the heaviest bird known? Source

Created by Extrapolaris (talk) and Achat1999 (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 09:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

Gilles Bouchard

Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

Cristatusaurus

Jaw bones of Cristatusaurus
Jaw bones of Cristatusaurus
  • ... that the name of the theropod dinosaur Cristatusaurus (fossils pictured) means "crested reptile", in reference to a thin sagittal crest located on top of its snout? Source: "Etymology: Cristatus: crested (Latin). Sauros: (Greek) lizard/reptile." "Premaxilla short, strongly ‘hooked’ in lateral profile, increases in height posteriorly. Dorsal surface narrows into crest posteriorly." [28]

Improved to Good Article status by PaleoGeekSquared (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment Looks long enough & well-sourced. I find the hook a bit unclear, tho: the article says it may be a nomen dubium, which suggests mis-identification; the hook implies something a bit different (& stronger?). And IMO the hook has an appeal more to specialists than a general audience; a change to "mis-identified" (or something similar) might broaden that. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Trekphiler Yeah, I was unsure about what to come up with for the hook, since it's a rather obscure and fragmentary taxon. I've rewritten it to stick with the "safe option" then, which is the creature's etymology. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 28[edit]

Carrie Tubb

  • ... that on her hundredth birthday, British soprano Carrie Tubb was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Music? Source: "Miss Carrie Tubb", The Times, 22 September 1976, p. 2. I am nominating the article on behalf of Tim and do not have access to this offline source.

Created by Tim riley (talk). Nominated by Pgallert (talk) at 09:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Ignaz Kirchner

Ignaz Kirchner acting in 2015
Ignaz Kirchner acting in 2015
  • Reviewed: Maya Krishna Roa
  • Comment: recent death, please handle soon

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 08:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: ????
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg @Gerda Arendt: I'm not sure the proposed hook is interesting. Catrìona (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

We have only 200 chars. They played more pairs (Jago and Othelle, and those in Waiting for Godot), and they won a prize for doing so, twice. (I don't know if any other male couple did, even once.) Perhaps we should first have an article on the Tabori play in which he is crucified? [29] But I would hesitate to bring that wording to the Main page, same as for "sadomasochistisches Männerpaar". - We could say that his speaking role became the sensation in an opera at the Salzburg Festival, but it's so far off what he normally does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 29[edit]

Thorne miniature rooms

Thorne miniature rooms chandelier detail
Thorne miniature rooms chandelier detail

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 15:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

Fencepost limestone

Cathedral of the Plains
Cathedral of the Plains
Stone Post
Stone Post
  • Comment: I created a "Fencepost limestone" stub in the article namespace so that there would be no red links in the many articles, Commons categories, and images that I wanted linked to the future article. I then wrote the main article off line, only loading it into my sandbox a couple weeks ago so I could show it to my farming family at a reunion. I continued with some minor cleanups until I copied it into the article namespace. Really, today, it is a new article, replacing a stub, but, technically, it is an expanded article. The ALT1 hook would use the present Infobox image, File:Endpost20150718.jpg.

5x expanded by IveGoneAway (talk). Self-nominated at 14:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment Seems to meet all the criteria. Long enough, cited, NPOV, hook (first one) is broadly interesting (2d, IMO, not so much). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Greg Fitzgerald

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 07:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size, refs, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck, all good. I do however have some concerns about the subject's notability - some references used in the article are of low quality, essentially press releases or reprints of. There is an article about him in FT ([30]), through it essentially has 2-3 paragraphs of information, and then one more decent in-depth article in Standard ([31]). Hmmm. this is probably borderline but ok, but I will leave this review for now in 'maybe' - I would appreciate another DYK reviewer commenting here on the topic of notability. If they think this topic is notable enough, I am fine with this being green-ticked as GTG. If not, ping me and we can take it to AfD for a different type of a review... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks for the review Piotrus. I think the subject passes WP:GNG due to the coverage in reliable sources and being head of a £1.4 billion company, but happy to discuss at AfD if you like. I have added the symbol to attract a second reviewer - Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ecclesia Athletic Association

  • ... that the Ecclesia Athletic Association, who promoted its children being able to do 1,000 to 5,00 continuous jumping jacks, had 53 children removed from its care in 1988? Source: a pamphlet that also noted that the youths "can do between 1,000 and 5,000 continuous jumping jacks & 42 of the 53 quiet and well-behaved youngsters who stayed there were subjected to ritualistic floggings that sometimes numbered as many as 800 strokes. The children, ranging in age from 6 weeks to 16 years, were removed from the home are from [32]
  • Reviewed: Shannon Evans
  • Comment: I will be away from 10/2 - 10/5.

Created by Barkeep49 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 30[edit]

Oscarella lobularis

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Biblioteca della Comunità Israelitica

Created by Turismond (talk). Self-nominated at 02:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg "Continue to be lost" is not natural English. See alternate suggestion below. Catrìona (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: @Catrìona: There might also be the option of combining the hook with the Raid of the Ghetto of Rome article which I expanded more then five fold on 30 September and which is historically tied to the looting. The hook is quite long but certain sections could be cut out to make it shorter:

@Turismond: These are two separate events and really deserve their own hooks. Should I ask for a second reviewer for ALT2? (I'm happy to nominate/review the raid for DYK). Catrìona (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: I'm happy to go either way, I would just ask you to please have a read of the expanded version of Raid of the Ghetto of Rome to make sure it's OK before nominating it for DYK. Turismond (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've nominated the other article separately. Catrìona (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Catriona: Could you give this nomination a formal tick of approval, and then I will be able to do what you request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 1[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 2[edit]

Udo Zimmermann

Udo Zimmermann in 2006
Udo Zimmermann in 2006
  • Reviewed: to come

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

ALT1: ... that Udo Zimmermann (pictured) composed two operas about the White Rose, one as a student?

Abrothrix illuteus, Podocarpus parlatore

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 10:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

EXAI

  • ... that EXAI offers website conversion to make mobile friendly websites for Google's Mobile First Indexing? Source: "Since google announced Mobile First Indexing in November 2016, EXAI started working on a solution that will provide millions of business around the world with a mobile friendly version of their website." ([33])

Created by Lihaas (talk). Self-nominated at 23:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Personally, I do not consider this sufficiently interesting for DYK. Catrìona (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Suggest an altu blurb?Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A drive by comment, and not wishing to give offense, although I probably will: I am not convinced that the grammar and use of English in this article is up to being in Wikipedia's "shop window". I stopped by to see if I could come up with a hookier hook, but in several places I was honestly unsure what was being communicated.
Could I suggest a thorough copy edit. A possibility re this is a GOCE Request. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: What part, by example, can you suggest is deficient?Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Marcel Comeau

Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 23:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

The Nature of Prejudice

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

2018 National League Central tie-breaker game, 2018 National League West tie-breaker game

  • Reviewed: IOU 2
  • Comment: We're still in the process of expanding both to Good Article Status because MLB tie-breakers is a Good Topic. ALT1 gets around the WP:SEAOFBLUE problem to make it clear there are two bold articles, not one.

Created by Muboshgu (talk), Spanneraol (talk), Mdumas43073 (talk), and Eposty (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 03:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

  • The above noms have redundant highlighted links and WP:EASTEREGGs. I think we should use informative links for the readers as suggested below. Any comments?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The editing seems to be winding down and limited to the aftermath at this point. However, we now know the aftermath will not conclude until the season is over. I am actually quite shocked that the article is being presented without any mention that the Rockies were going for their first ever NL West title, which is as important as the Dodgers being 5x defending champs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I realize that there is a whole featured topic of these to be modeled after, but I think each article should say Team A was going for their Xth National League Division title and Yth National League Foo Division title (if the team has moved divisions like the Cubs) for each team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The above are suggestions. However, here is the review:
Both articles are long enough and new enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the ALT2 that I have nominated to the other noms and consider this an interesting, well-formed hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Content is within policy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There are still no QPQ reviews presented.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Although I am not sure why, there are no images. It would seem to me that some biographical photos could be included, but I realize there are probably no photos from the game to include.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hina Kino

  • ... that Hina Kino was inspired to become a voice actress after watching a talk show produced by the gaming magazine Famitsu? Source: [34] (木野：中学3年生の時にいろんな出来事が重なったんです。まず、「ファミ通TV」を観たことで声優さんという存在を知って、たまたま同時期に公開されていた映画「ONE PIECE THE MOVIE エピソードオブチョッパー+ 冬に咲く、奇跡の桜」を観て、アニメってこんなに面白いんだ…と。あと、当時通っていた塾の塾長が、会うたびに「声がいいねぇ」と言ってくださったこともあって、高校に入る頃には、声優になろう！って。)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Windscale Piles
  • Comment: Additional hook suggestions welcomed; the source I linked above has quite a bit of information about her that could work as hook materials, for example her calling anime "funny" or her being nervous and "practicing furiously" during her first role.

Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 3[edit]

Solo 66

A Skat pack with French-suited cards
A Skat pack with French-suited cards
  • ... that Solo 66 is a trick-taking card game for 5 players, played with a French-suited Skat pack, that is considered "an entertaining game for a larger group"? Source: "Geeignet als unterhaltsames Spiel in größerer Runde." Claus D. Grupp: Kartenspiele. Falken-Verlag Erich Sicker, Wiesbaden 1975; pp. 63–64. ISBN 3-8068-2001-5, and "Solo 66. Für 5 Spieler. Zum Spiel gehören: 1 Skatspiel, franz. Bild ohne 7 und 8" Spielesammlung - ASS gaming rules.
  • Reviewed: to follow shortly.

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 19:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Der Schuhu und die fliegende Prinzessin

  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 13:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

Cynthia Lenige

  • ... that Frisian poet Cynthia Lenige died at age 24 in 1780, and her work was published two years after her death? Source: [35]
  • Reviewed: I'm on it.

Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 00:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Red XN - ?
Overall: Symbol question.svg not the world's most interesting hook, but I clicked on it so I can't complain. Just needs a qpq and this'll be good to go. @Drmies: Keilana (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Byrd

Created by Julia W (talk). Self-nominated at 13:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Julia W: Can you just make sure all paragraphs end in a citation and that there are no remaining BLP concerns? I removed or amended some passages that I could not find sources for, or where the sources did not cover the full extent of what is written in the article. HTH. Looks good otherwise. Samsara 08:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Samsara: Good call, thank you, I've added in references where indicated. One of the parts you took out I agree with leaving out. Please check over? Julia\talk 13:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Avis Crocombe

Avis Crocombe and husband, 1886
Avis Crocombe and husband, 1886
Avis Crocombe (right) played by Kathy Hipperson
Avis Crocombe (right) played by Kathy Hipperson
  • ... that Victorian cook Avis Crocombe (pictured with husband) prepared "dead man's leg" for the servants' hall?
    • ALT1:... that Victorian cook Avis Crocombe, played by Kathy Hipperson (pictured, right), has become a YouTube sensation nearly a century after her death?

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Lapa do Santo

View from the rockshelter entrance
View from the rockshelter entrance
  • ALT1 that Lapa do Santo, in Minas Gerais, Brazil, has evidence of human occupation around 12,000 years ago, as well as the oldest recorded case of decapitation in the Americas? Source: [37] [38]
Reviewed The Sensorites

Created by Strauss MAE-USP (talk). Nominated by Mike Peel (talk) at 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC).


Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. Can you have another look? I've proposed a longer hook, ALT1, above. @Strauss MAE-USP: has added references. The similar phrases look minimal to me, are there particular ones you think need rewriting? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Strauss MAE-USP and Mike Peel: ALT1 looks much better. I definitely might be interested by the first recorded decapitation in the Americas. So you have my thumbs up for that one. I really only have three concerns with copyvios, and here they are:
  • "the reduction of the body by means of mutilation, defleshing, tooth removal, exposure to fire and possibly cannibalism, followed by the secondary burial of the remains according to strict rules" - possibly unattributed direct quote
  • "the oldest case of decapitation in the New World" and "were filled with disarticulated bones of a single" - these phrases are too close to the quoted text, even a paraphrase would be good.
  • "three distinct periods of human occupation" - same as above from this source.
That's all of the phrases I was concerned about. Now for the sourcing:
  • "The rockshelter and the archaeological site" doesn't have any sources. A general rule of thumb is to aim for at least one source per paragraph.
  • "Mobility" still doesn't have any sources.
  • The ends of many paragraphs don't have sources. In some cases only the first sentence has a source. On the other hand, all of the references look reliable and authoritative. My issue is with the placement of the sources. Could you move them to the end of the paragraph?
That's all of the outstanding DYK issues. Now going off on a few personal style nitpicks:
  • Although not necessary, I'd also suggest cleaning up this article to comply with some MOS guidelines. For instance, putting the periods before the references.
  • I'm concerned that there are way too many images in this article (there are 231 in total, but only about 4 thumbnail images, the rest are in galleries). WP:NOTGALLERY. Have you considered creating a gallery on Commons?
Sorry to bother you with all these issues. I know it sounds like a lot, but from the looks of it, this article probably does not need that many modifications to get it into good shape for DYK. On a personal note, I am impressed by Strauss MAE-USP's work on this article with over 25 kB of prose size. Maybe this can be nominated as a good article later. epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A719 road

5x expanded by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Ritchie, there's no point at all in doing this unless the hook is something like
ALT2 ... that a Trump resort is directly linked to Moscow?
(I've come to believe that hooks should generally link only the primary article unless there's a really good reason to link other stuff as well, given that the other links can be found in the primary article.) We need to be careful about sourcing, though. I don't think it's SYNTH to cite two sources, one saying that the road passes the Trump Turnberry, and another saying it passes through Moscow, but it would be better if a single source recites both. Since you're British figuring that out can be your job. EEng 19:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I was impressed I could make a reasonable start on this article; I'm pretty ambivalent about what hook goes on the main page as long as there's a Trump - Moscow link in there somewhere that'll drag readers in. (As far as a source goes, while you have to zoom in and out, Google Maps marks the Trump Turnberry Hotel and the village of Moscow as being on the A719; and all the source needs to do is verify the places exist) However, for those who get uneasy about cheap political gags, may I offer you:
ALT3:... that on part of the A719 road, cars seem to roll uphill? (Source: "Turn off the engine on the Electric Brae in Ayrshire and your car will magically roll uphill. That’s the effect of the mysterious attraction on the A719 between Drumshrang and Knoweside." The Scotsman) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree strongly with EEng about the right approach to this, and I believe that there will be no justification for crying BLP so long as we make proper use of blue links. Consequently, I propose:
ALT4: ... that a Trump resort is directly linked to Moscow?
ALT4 is identical to ALT2 but with two blue links added. By the way, I am only proposing a hook, because I have done nothing to review the page for DYK criteria, but I have all the best hooks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't think a fish would have much truck with hooks. But I agree with your reasoning and have struck A2. EEng 20:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment—I think ALT4 is the most "hooky" option, and the linking makes it clear which Moscow is being referred to. Catrìona (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added explicit cites supporting the hook. EEng 03:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

William Keiller

  • ... that one of the earliest accounts of the use of cocaine for spinal anaesthesia was given by William Keiller, anatomy professor at Galveston, Texas? Source: Keiller's paper on the use of cocaine in spinal anesthesia was published shortly after the pioneering papers by Bier in Germany and Matas in the USA. Keiller, William (1900). "Cocaine anaesthesia by lumbar puncture". Texas Medical News. 10: 141–144.

Created by Iainmacintyre (talk). Self-nominated at 16:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg. Reviewing. Please check copyvio [39]new enough (moved from sandbox), long enough. I'll complete later. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that review @Whispyhistory:. Text reworded and Earwig now shows only duplication of names, institutions and dates but not text. Papamac (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, looking good. Copyvio ok. "Keiller's paper on the use of cocaine in spinal anaesthesia was published shortly after the pioneering papers by Bier in Germany and Matas in the USA."...Is that what is written in the inline citations you used? If not, can you cite this sentence with another source or think of alternative hook? Your hook is in your article, but the hook fact in the article also needs to be in the source used for the inline citation. The other sources state he pioneered in local anaesthetics without mentioning cocaine. The information may be in one of the 'subscription required' sources Whispyhistory (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Opener (baseball)

Sergio Romo
Sergio Romo
  • Reviewed: IOU

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 04:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New article from a redirect on October 2, 4,200 characters, and within WP policies. The hook is short enough and interesting to a broad audience. The image is properly sourced and licensed. Just waiting on the QPQ. Muboshgu, let me know when the QPQ is done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke

  • ... that Oswald Boelcke is considered "the father of air combat"? Source: "Oswald Boelcke did not invent air-to-air tactics, the squadron organizational system, or the German Air Force. Still, his contributions to air warfare are so profound, he is considered the father of all three."

  • ALT1: ... that Oswald Boelcke is considered the father of air combat tactics, the organization of squadrons, and the German Air Force?

Source: "Oswald Boelcke did not invent air-to-air tactics, the squadron organizational system, or the German Air Force. Still, his contributions to air warfare are so profound, he is considered the father of all three." The title of the major source for this article is "Oswald Boelcke: Germany's First Fighter Ace and Father of Air Combat", and the entirety of the book is devoted toward proving this point.

  • Reviewed: Pending.

Improved to Good Article status by Georgejdorner (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk). Nominated by Georgejdorner (talk) at 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The source provided does not actually include the quote "the father of air combat". Catrìona (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The title of the major source for this article is "Oswald Boelcke: Germany's First Fighter Ace and Father of Air Combat", and the entirety of the book is devoted toward proving this point.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 4[edit]

German torpedo boat T23

Alsterufer burning after a RAF bomber attack
Alsterufer burning after a RAF bomber attack
  • ... that when the blockade runner MV Alsterufer (pictured) the German torpedo boat T23 had orders to protect was sunk by a Royal Air Force bomber, the German ship continued to the rendezvous point where two British cruisers were instead? Source: page 98 of Hervieux, Pierre (1986). "The Elbing Class Torpedo Boats at War". In Lambert, Andrew. Warship X. London: Conway Maritime Press. pp. 95–102. ISBN 0-85177-449-0.
    • ALT1:... that instead of meeting the blockade runner MV Alsterufer (pictured) at a fixed rendezvous point in the Atlantic Ocean, the German torpedo boat T23 encountered two British cruisers, Alsterufer having been sunk by a Royal Air Force bomber? Source: page 98 of Hervieux, Pierre (1986). "The Elbing Class Torpedo Boats at War". In Lambert, Andrew. Warship X. London: Conway Maritime Press. pp. 95–102. ISBN 0-85177-449-0.
  • Reviewed: 4th DYK, not needed

Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 03:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

Marcy Tigner

  • ... that Little Marcy was made by the same company who made Charlie McCarthy? Source: Bullock, page 52.
    • ALT1:... that Marcy Tigner sold more than 2 million albums using her child-like voice? Source: Statesman Journal. Salem, Oregon. February 20, 1982. p. 20: "She has made 40 Christian albums for children during the past 20 years, and more than 2 million copies have been sold."

Created by 78.26 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Andrew Steiner, Karol Hochberg

  • Comment: It's appropriate to call him "Andrej Steiner" here, since that is how he is referred to in all of the sources relating to his role in Holocaust resistance, and he did not change his name to Andrew until he moved to the US.
  • Reviewed: Soviet partisans in Finland, Donald Liebenberg

Created/expanded by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 01:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

Ann Thomas Callahan

Created by Nikkimaria (talk). Self-nominated at 01:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Memoriale della Shoah

Source: A Wall of Indifference: Italy's Shoah Memorial" & "'We could not remain indifferent': Milan's Holocaust Museum now a shelter for African refugees"
  • Comment: The option also exists to hold this until 6 December, the 75th anniversary of the first train from Milan to Auschwitz, and use the below, rather sombre, hook, as long as people don't feel putting it on the main page like this trivialises the events.
Source: Timeline – from 1922 to 1945 (in Italian, mostly)

Created by Turismond (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol voting keep.svg I was about to create this page and suggest ALT2 (below). However, I really like ALT1 or its variation, ALT3, below—some might take exception to the fact that some deportees might have been removed from Auschwitz and died in other concentration camps. I recommend that the hook is held until 6 December. You have a very minor close paraphrasing issue according to Earwig.

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg for ALT2 and ALT3. Catrìona (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I have rephrased that sentence, the Earwig score has now come down to 2.9%. In regards to Auschwitz you do have a point there. The translation of the source states The first convoy of Jewish deportees to Auschwitz-Birkenau departs from an underground railway of the Milan Central Station. It includes 169 people, of which 5 will survive, which doesn't quite support that they were actually killed there. I think your Alt 3 addresses that issue of uncertainty. Turismond (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

East Side Access

  • ... that the East Side Access railroad expansion project in New York City costs about $3,500,000,000 per mile ($2.2×109/km) of new tunnel, seven times higher than in other countries? Source: NY Times 2017. "The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as “East Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 billion for each new mile of track — seven times the average elsewhere in the world.".
    • ALT1:.. that a railroad expansion to New York City's Grand Central Terminal is estimated to cost US$11.1 billion in total? Source: NY Times 2018. "A new train station under Grand Central Terminal and a tunnel connecting it to the Long Island Rail Road will now cost more than $11 billion — about $1 billion more than a 2014 estimate, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority."
    • ALT2:.. that the East Side Access railroad expansion project in New York City, once proposed for completion in 2009 at a cost of US$4.3 billion, but now is planned for completion in 2022 at a cost of US$11 billion? Sources: (1) NY Daily News 2014. "The authority originally estimated the link would be ready for LIRR riders by 2009 at a cost of $4.3 billion, according to the state controller's office." (2) NY Times 2018. See the $11 billion quote mentioned in ALT1, plus: "The project is unlikely to open before December 2022."

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk), Kew Gardens 613 (talk), and PrecipiceofDuck (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 01:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Acacia ramulosa

Acacia ramulosa seed pods
Acacia ramulosa seed pods

5x expanded by Hughesdarren (talk). Self-nominated at 06:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

Proposing changes to Wikilink and minor correction with:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Query regarding ALT hook for clarity and to include link. 5 x expansion, appropriately referenced, no copy right vio, Hook is fine and appropriate, hook refs checkout OK, images are good and used well. Zakhx150 (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The suggested ALT hook is improved by adding link and removing the unnecessary "the". Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 5[edit]

Muhammad Tapar's anti-Nizari campaign

  • ... that Seljuk sultan Muhammad Tapar's campaign against the outnumbered Nizari Ismailis (the Assassins) eventually failed after a decade of war? 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 ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Nucella ostrina

  • ... that the northern striped dogwinkle lays around 550 eggs in a capsule, most of which are eaten by the 10 to 20 juveniles that eventually hatch? 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 majority of eggs laid by the northern striped dogwinkle are infertile and are consumed by the juveniles that eventually hatch?

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Regina Kapeller-Adler

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 13:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

Leonard Cuthbert Lucas

  • ... that Brigadier Leonard Cuthbert Lucas was decorated for his part on the construction of facilities for the British Operation Totem nuclear tests at Emu Field in Australia? "For services in the preparation of the site for the recent atomic tests in Central Australia." [42]

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Liamani Segura

  • ... that Liamani Segura, who sang the US national anthem before 1,300 high school basketball fans at age six, taught herself by watching music videos on YouTube?Source: "But that's just what 6-year-old Liamani Segura did Thursday night when she sang 'The Star Spangled Banner' to a crowd of about 1,300 at the St. Catherine’s High School basketball game... Liamani has taught herself, a lot of it from watching musical videos on YouTube." (Racine Journal Times)

Created by Yoninah (talk). Self-nominated at 17:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

The Durant

The Durant
The Durant

Created by Andrew Jameson (talk). Nominated by Michael Barera (talk) at 22:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Bloodhound
Bloodhound

Violet Friend

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

General eligiblity:

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Shahdiz

  • ... that a small group of besieged Nizari Ismailis (the Assassins) in Shahdiz fortress refused offer of a safe withdrawal and fought against the Seljuk army from tower to tower in a last stand? Source: "Aḥmad and his small band of Nezārīs fought the Saljuqs gallantly from tower to tower" [43]

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 17:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Ratna Ani Lestari

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 13:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Acacia shirleyi

Lancewood
Lancewood
  • ... that the wood of lancewood (pictured) smells like violets when cut or exposed? Source

5x expanded by Casliber (talk) and Hughesdarren (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 10:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Gilling sword

  • ... that the Gilling sword was found in a river, in 1976, by a nine-year old boy and subsequently awarded its own Blue Peter badge? Source: "The sword was discovered on 9 April 1976 by nine-year old Gary Fridd on the north side of Gilling Beck, in Gilling West, North Yorkshire" Source for DiscoverySource for Badge
    • ALT1:... that the Gilling sword was found in a river in 1976 by a nine-year old boy? Source: "The sword was discovered on 9 April 1976 by nine-year old Gary Fridd on the north side of Gilling Beck, in Gilling West, North Yorkshire" Source for Discovery
    • ALT2:... that the Gilling sword was awarded its own Blue Peter badge? Source: "The finder appeared on the children's television programme Blue Peter to talk about his discovery and both he and the sword were awarded Blue Peter badges." Source

Created by Zakhx150 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Gary Wiren

  • ... that Gary Wiren has taught the game of golf to more than a quarter of a million people in 32 countries?

Created by Isingness (talk). Self-nominated at 10:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 6[edit]

Spheciospongia vesparium

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 19:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

German torpedo boat T22

Sister ship T35
Sister ship T35
  • ... that after crippling one British destroyer, escorting five blockade runners, and participating in two battles, the German torpedo boat T22 (sister ship pictured) was ultimately blown up by a naval mine? Source: page 211 of *Whitley, M. J. (1991). German Destroyers of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-302-8.
    • ALT1:... that the German torpedo boat T22 (sister ship pictured), along with two other destroyers, was blown up by a naval mine while laying a minefield? Source: page 211 of *Whitley, M. J. (1991). German Destroyers of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-302-8.

Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 12:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Alfred George Pither

Mark 1A Light Weight Air Warning (LW/AW) Radar.
Mark 1A Light Weight Air Warning (LW/AW) Radar.
  • ... that Wing Commander Alfred George Pither established a network of radar stations (example pictured) in Northern Australia? Source: "He established a chain of long-range radar stations throughout Australia and the Pacific." ([44])

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Anne Ratna Mustika

  • ... that Anne Ratna Mustika was pregnant when sworn in to succeed her husband? Source: Kompas: "istri mantan Bupati Purwakarta Dedi Mulyadi ini tengah dalam kondisi hamil pada saat pelantikan berlangsung."
    • ALT1:... that Anne Ratna Mustika was pregnant with her predecessor's baby when sworn in as regent of Purwakarta, Indonesia?
    • ALT2:... that Anne Ratna Mustika, her husband and her uncle all served as regents of Purwakarta, Indonesia? Source: Pikiran Rakyat: Anne Ratna Mustika merupakan istri bupati Purwakarta dua periode, Dedi Mulyadi. Perempuan pehobi olah raga dan membaca itu juga adalah keponakan mantan Bupati Purwakarta periode 1993-2003, Bunyamin Dudih.

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 7[edit]

Cephalotes atratus

  • Reviewed: Roman Twardy
  • Comment: The punning ALT0 hook might suit the quirky spot

Converted from a redirect by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 08:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

Andrew B. Turnbull

Created/expanded (moved to mainspace on Oct 7) by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

Danger Bird (Neil Young song)

Converted from a redirect by Rlendog (talk). Self-nominated at 14:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Gascon campaign of 1345

Created by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Bahra (tribe)

Moved to mainspace by Al Ameer son (talk). Self-nominated at 19:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Armin Frieder

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 00:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Tommy Lockhart

5x expanded by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 21:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

  • DYK checklist template

General eligiblity:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - ?

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Earwigged the article; possible copyvios were either organization or place names, or common phrases. Article has been expanded approximately 10X, and is verging on being over-cited. Hooks are good, with the first one clearly the best. However, I run into difficulties with sourcing for the hooks. I am unable to discern whether the source given for the four hooks is a website, or a document gathered from a printed source. As I recall, a website must have a bibliography to be a reliable source. I am putting the nom on hold while awaiting clarification.

Additionally, even though it is not needed for DYK review, I would like to note my uneasiness about the photo used in the article, as it is not free of copyright.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: ALT0, ALT2 & ALT 3 are cited as per a document on The Chuck Miller Creative Writing Service web site. ALT1 is cited from flyer available on the USA Hockey web site database. The photo used in the article is copyrighted and used under a fair use license, only for that article. I have deliberately not put the photo in this nomination as only free license photos may be featured on the front page. In other words, this hook would not appear in the photo slot. Flibirigit (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Georgejdorner the fair use image of a deceased person is properly licensed and should not affect the eligibility of this nomination. As the nominator points out, it's not being submitted for appearance on the main page, which would not be allowed. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
A careful reading of my above comment will tell you that I am not holding up this nom for the photo. I merely commented on it, seeking information to satisfy my curiousity. Please pay attention.
I still need the ambiguity about the source clarified. I would like to see this nom run. I think the first hook about the bear is a hoot.15:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Georgejdorner: ALT0, ALT2 & ALT 3 are cited as per a document on The Chuck Miller Creative Writing Service web site. ALT1 is cited from flyer available on the USA Hockey web site database. Do you feel those are not reliable sources? Do you have othe questions? Flibirigit (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter

  • ... that in 1342 John, Lord FitzWalter accused men from Colchester of invading and damaging his park at Lexden, and soon after, besieged the town for over two months?
    Source: For 1342, V. C. H. (1994). A History of the County of Essex. IX: The Borough of Colchester. London: Victoria County History; for FitzWalters accusations, Starr, C. (2004). "Fitzwalter family (per. c. 1200–c. 1500)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; for te damage done, Furber, E. C. (1953). Essex Sessions of the Peace, 1351, 1377-1379. Colchester: Essex Archaeological Society; for the link between the two events, Britnell, R. H. (1988). "The Fields and Pastures of Colchester, 1280–1350". Transactions of the Essex Archaeological and History Society. 3rd series. 19.; for the siege itself and its duration, V. C. H.

Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 8[edit]

Adenia hondala

  • ... that the tubers and seeds of Adenia hondala are used in herbal medicine?
  • Reviewed: Barbara P. McCarthy
  • Comment: This is an expansion of an article in need of attention which I came across when patrolling new articles.

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Firos ak (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 09:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

Andy Kerr (footballer, born 1966)

  • Reviewed: Pending

Created by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Slovak Three

  • ... that in June 2001, three members of the Real IRA tried to buy arms from Iraq, promising the men they thought were Iraqi Intelligence that their use against Britain would "bring a smile to your face"? Source: For the RIRA negotiating with Iraq, Barrett, R.; Parker, P. (2018) "Acting Ethically in the Shadows: Intelligence Gathering and Human Rights", in Nowak M. Using Human Rights to Counter Terrorism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; for MI5 impersonating Iraqi Intelligence, Clarke, L. (25 June 2006) "Sting by security services foils renewed Real IRA campaign", The Times; for the quote, Steele, J. (8 May 2002) "Real IRA men snared by MI5 given 30 years", The Daily Telegraph.
    • ALT1:... that in 2001, members of the Real IRA attempted to buy arms from MI5 agents, believing them to be Iraqi gunrunners, and wrote their list on a napkin which an agent blew his nose on before pocketing? For the gunrunning &Iraqi connection, Barrett & Parker, and Clarke, per ALT0; for the nose-blowing, etc, Johnston, P. (3 May 2002) "Tip-off that set up Real IRA 'Arab sting'", The Daily Telegraph.

Created by Serial Number 54129 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - I think shorter hooks would be more effective. Just my 2c.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Well written, well over required length, excellent DYK material. Catrìona (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppe H, Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions, Kremnička and Nemecká massacres

  • ... that Einsatzkommando 14 and local collaborators committed the two most notorious massacres in the history of Slovakia? 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 Einsatzkommando 14 and local collaborators committed the two largest massacres in the history of Slovakia?
    • In case three articles in one hook is too many, we could also go with:
      • ALT2a: ... that "Slovaks killed Slovaks" during the two largest massacres in the history of Slovakia? Source: Title of this article, Schön, Jozef (16 March 2017). "Keď Slovák vraždil Slováka". Hnonline (in Slovak). "When Slovaks killed Slovaks"
      • ALT2b: ... that along with murdering or deporting thousands of Jews and Romani people, Einsatzgruppe H targeted German soldiers suspected of defeatism and homosexuality?

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment I'm fairly sure for three bolded links you need 3 reviews, or am I wrong? Juxlos (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Where are the source texts for hooks requested in the nomination form?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Juxlos: You're correct, that's in the supplementary rules and I wasn't aware of it. plus Added. @Georgejdorner: It is not actually a requirement to quote sources, as long as they are cited in the article (which these are, see then end of Kremnička and Nemecká massacres). The reason why I commented on your hook is that it was odd to include a quote that did not actually support the proposed hook. There is actually no source describing the massacres as "notorious" simply because almost all sources are non-English, but being described as the "Slovak Katyn" and similar means that it's reasonable to conclude that this is the general view on the massacres in Slovakia. Catrìona (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Bob Jones (footballer, born 1902)

Created/expanded by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 11:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

The Hexer (film)

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment – The article is presently tagged (by another user, not me) as needing additional citations (link). North America1000 13:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

British nuclear testing in the United States

The Krakatau subcritical experiment is prepared to be lowered into a tunnel at the U1a Complex at the Nevada Test Site.
The Krakatau subcritical experiment is prepared to be lowered into a tunnel at the U1a Complex at the Nevada Test Site.
  • ... that the UK conducted 24 nuclear weapons tests in the United States between 1962 and 1991, and that subcritical tests not involving explosions such as Krakatau in 2006 (pictured) continue? Source: offline I'm afraid

5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk) and SkoreKeep (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 23:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Neil Matthews (footballer, born 1967)

  • ... that footballer Neil Matthews was the first Rochdale player to win an international cap at any level? Source: NIFG The Who's Who of Cardiff City by Dean Hayes "he did manage the honour of being Dale's first international representative of any kind"
  • Reviewed: Pending

Created by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 18:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

LeCompte maneuver

  • ... that the LeCompte maneuver helps surgeons switch a baby's aorta and pulmonary artery? Source: "Anterior translocation of the pulmonary arteries (PAs) in relation to the aorta was first described by LeCompte in 1981 in his description of a new technique of the arterial switch operation (ASO) for d-transposition of great arteries (TGA)."

5x expanded by Keilana (talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Karel František Koch

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 06:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 10[edit]

Saphir-class submarine (1928)

Scale model of Saphir
Scale model of Saphir

Created by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

Coat of arms of the Prince of Wales

Coat of arms of Charles, Prince of Wales
Coat of arms of Charles, Prince of Wales

Created/expanded by Sodacan (talk). Self-nominated at 12:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

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 nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; 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=863432323"