Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SKIP TO THE BOTTOM
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know ...?"
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Nominations (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP:DYKA
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
August 19 1
August 21 1
August 26 1
September 1 1
September 4 1 1
September 20 3 1
September 22 2 1
September 23 1
September 25 1 1
September 27 1 1
September 28 3
October 1 4 3
October 2 4 1
October 3 1 1
October 4 2 1
October 5 3 1
October 6 5 4
October 8 1 1
October 9 1
October 10 4 4
October 11 5 2
October 12 5 5
October 13 5 3
October 14 2 2
October 15 8 6
October 16 11 9
October 17 9 9
October 18 7 5
October 19 11 8
October 20 15 12
October 21 10 6
October 22 5 4
October 23 5 5
October 24 11 10
October 25 7 2
October 26 10 8
October 27 8 5
October 28 12 4
October 29 11 3
October 30 4
Total 202 129
Last updated 12:52, 30 October 2020 UTC
Current time is 12:53, 30 October 2020 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.

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 August 19[edit]

Offending religious feelings (Poland)

  • ... that, in Poland, offending religious feelings is punishable by two years in jail? Source: "Poland’s blasphemy law, Article 196 of the Penal Code, states that “anyone found guilty of offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship is liable to a fine, restriction of liberty or a maximum two-year prison sentence.”" Freedom House

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment: Not reviewing the hook, but it seems a bit misleading. The hook creates the misleading impression that Polish law prohibits merely offending someone's religious feelings. In fact, the law prohibits calumny (i.e., the making of false and defamatory statements causing reputational harm) directed at religion. Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If you read the article, you would discover that not all of the incidents involve false statements about religion; in fact, many involve things that are not defamation by any strech of the imagination but simply things believers find offensive (such as rainbow halo on Madonna). "Offending religious feelings" or "insulting religious feelings" is the term used in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a separate law, Article 256, which forbids incitement to hatred based on religious belief. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The language of the statute, as quoted in the article, limits the crime to offense "through public calumny of an object or place of worship". Cbl62 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but in practice the law also punishes modifications / reproductions of objects that believers don't like, irreverent statements about the Bible and such, there is nothing misleading about the hook. (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
IMO the hook grossly oversimplifies the statute, in an apparent attempt to make it appear ludicrous, but I will leave it up to the person conducting the review to make the final call. Cbl62 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe ALT0b would help: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
... that, in Poland, extreme offending religious feelings is punishable by two years in jail?
I don't think that works. Whether these incidents are "extreme" or not is a value judgement not found in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, this is interesting and hooky, but I do kind of share some of the concerns of the previous drive-by commenter: in particular, does this article meet, or aspire to meet, DYK eligibility criterion 4a on neutral point of view? To start with, the translation of the law in question (the article's lede) is sourced from a site that is criticising this law, indeed from a document that concludes: "(blasphemy) prosecutions under Article 196 of the Penal Code represent undue restrictions on freedom of expression". The wiki Polish Penal Code article linked has an external link to this translation: "Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by outraging in public an object of religious worship or a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years." [1] "Outraging" is also the translation used by the UN here; (znieważając seems to be the Polish word in question.) If you look at the definition of "calumny" in wiktionary, Wikt:calumny, this is defined as (noun) (1) "A false accusation or charge brought to tarnish another's reputation or standing" (2) "Falsifications or misrepresentations intended to disparage or discredit another"; (verb) "To make false accusations or levy false charges against a person with the intent to tarnish that person's reputation or standing; to calumniate". As might be expected the attack article you use as your source is spinning the law before it even starts. Such articles may not be the best sources of statute law, you must know that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, the translation used (1) elides the "victims" of the "crime", by vague reference to "religious feelings" rather than offence to "other persons"; (2) introduces a structural ambiguity through calumny of "an object" rather than "an object of religious worship", and (3) reduces "a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites", emphasising the public/communal spirit of such, and thus the lack of concern for the public/communal good of contravenors of such, to "place of worship" (?also now private, despite "publicznego"?); (?4?) both with "an object" and "place of worship", this "translation" could be seen as purposely geared to lead readers to thoughts of overreach, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I had a quick look, but couldn't immediately find anything - in the UK, while the church is in general a legitimate target for attack (from the left), (some) other religions of the book are not; it would be interesting to know whether this law has been used in relation to/to protect "minorities"/other beliefs in Poland (do you think the article should have "(Poland)" in the title)? This may be one way in which this article becomes a little more NPOV. Are there any others? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Finally, from me before I hear from you.., would it be possible to expand in the image caption upon why this might be regarded as "offensive" - indeed, why on earth the "LGBT" movement, or an artist so affiliated, chose to put some colourful stripes in the halo of an early mediaeval icon of all places to put them, why on earth would they chose that rather than say a box of shreddies that may be more readily to hand? (The article linked in the caption does not explain.) Where is the frisson? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You're mistaken, rule 4a states "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy." There is no requirement for hooks to do the same. Please see WP:BIASED when it comes to biased sources. News articles in English use similar translations with "offend",[2][3][4] The Cambridge book cited translates as follows:

    Th e provisions of Article 196 of the PPC are directed at anyone who ‘ o ff ends the religious feelings of other persons ’ , that is, who acts in a manner that is perceived as demeaning or off ensive to the object of religious worship or a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites. A particular type of behaviour is to be viewed as demeaning or off ensive based on objective criteria, following the moral standards of a particular religious community.

    And as I say above, "calumny" in English is misleading, because per that quote it does not require a false statement, just any action or statement that offends believers. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, where am I mistaken? Do I not question the NPOVness of the article, not of the hook? Re WP:Biased, to which you refer me, are you saying that such may be good sources for supporting information? I'm not denying that, I'm saying for statute law. For the law itself, it may not be. Would you be prepared, or be happy for me, to switch the translation and the reference to such in the lede to that per and eg the UN link provided above? Also, are you happy for me to put an X against this article on lack of article NPOV grounds? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If the Freedom House translation is inaccurate or that the ones you cite are better, I would be happy to replace it, but you've not presented any evidence that it's the case. The bias of a source is not necessarily related to accuracy and there is no issue with citing a biased source in the lead of an article. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Have you yourself not just said that the translation you have used, that forms the lede, and is cited above, is "misleading"?... (In terms of (wiki)-pedagodical value here, should we not be trying to encourage good or at least neutral sourcing for such as laws; what is the best source for English translation of Polish law? It's a new field for me and you seem to be better placed language-wise, where should we be sourcing translations of Polish law?) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I switched to the translation provided by European Court of Human Rights, which is probably more authoritative. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Great - though you're probably right to question that... in fact this avoids "outrage" so is probably at least as good as the others, and as that is the court the article says is hearing some of these cases, hopefully they've pored over the semantics of the legislation in question. Are you able to address the points about the image caption and maybe some balance in non-criticism/relation to other beliefs? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. For the purpose of the law, it does not matter why believers find it offensive, just that they do; further context is provided at the article linked in the caption. The caption already meets WP:CAPTION and adding more info is likely to impede the second criteria, being succinct.
  2. WP:NPOV requires the balance of reliable sources, not the balance of opinions. The article already states that the law has not been found to contravene the Polish constitution or the European Convention of Human Rights. However, most reliable sources, either inside or outside of Poland, are critical of the law. The article should reflect that. The highest quality source I was able to find, the Cambridge one, states at the end: "Consequently, the necessary prerequisites of predictability and proportionality needed for any restriction of a fundamental human right [i.e. freedom of speech] to be legitimate are not met by the Polish criminal blasphemy clause." (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg someone is trying to have this article merged/deleted; like the nominator, I strongly oppose this, but presumably we need to wait for this to conclude before promoting; I have amended the article semi-considerably to try to address previously significant NPOV concerns; assuming there is no reverting of my edit, this is/should be otherwise good to go, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg - revert of reliably sourced additional material to reinforce the POV-pushing, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg: Changing no to a maybe as the nominator has attempted to address (some of) the points raised, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
What is POV-pushing? Please be specific. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I have no more time to spend on this since this is simply time wasted; of course someone else can override, but WP:DUCK or what; look at the exchange above for how difficult it is - "you are mistaken", erroneous citation of policy, so reluctant to move from sourcing/translation of legislation you yourself stated was misleading but helped shape the law one way (followed by a constitutionality section, a largely fail section, and a criticisms section); also, and on a somewhat different if semi-related note (and thanks for the WP:INVOLVED flag) do you really think there was nothing that could be rescued from the edit you reverted? Was the see also - hate speech, which references article 196 - so objectionable that another user's contribution had to be rejected? Does the image caption now better explain for those not already in the know what is going on? Why removal of contextual information on Catholicism in Poland that helps users not already in the know understand the background; there are articles on Ordo Iuris in Polish, French etc, wikis, may be an RS, but if you are so sure it is not - the article in question seemed pretty serious and sensible and at least as reliable as some of the other sources cited, if you wished to show a modicum of respect for another user's efforts, since this source was used to provide historical context in terms of prior similar legislation for Article 196 - presumably of relevance to this article - with your familiarity with the sources, you could have found alternative sources, or piped the legislation for much of it - or did you not like the conclusion from this mini-survey that "the provision has moved from penalizing blasphemy to protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs", etc; as I say, someone else can overrule, but I'm not the first on this page to express their concerns, and they extend beyond hook content, to article content, and editing style; sorry to be so stentorian; (see also the article/dyk nom for profaning a monument), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. For "most revered Catholic icon", even if it's true, you would need to cite a more authoritative source than The Independent. Also, your expansions brought the caption to 8 lines, violating the requirement to be succinct.
This was a quote. Abbreviated to the point of incomprehension unless you already know, policy sounds good though, and it helps the slant, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. It's not clear to me what the population of Catholics in Poland has to do with the law; the source doesn't mention any connection. According to WP:OR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
Catholics, and Conservative Catholics to boot, sound like some kind of fringe group. Apparently lots of Catholics in Poland, which the link, the source, and the text helped communicate, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. Ordo Iuris is mostly known for right-wing culture warrioring[5][6] It is influential among certain circles in Poland but I cannot see any indication it is a reliable source. If you think it's reliable, WP:RSN would be the right place for the discussion.
I have done as suggested here, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
As I said this is not being used for their editorial but as a convenient summary of the preceding related legal provisions. If you wished, you could have found alternatives, if their quotes of the historic/legacy legislation are no good. It's the same point I was making before but I don't know where to turn. I provided pdf links for better translations. You could show similar willing. Presumably the content is relevant at least, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. Hate speech article is already linked in the article so it should not be linked in see also (MOS:SEEALSO). (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it? That hate speech in Poland article? Where? Ah, did a search in the edit screen; lurking behind "Article 256". Could probably risk a see also with hate speech in Poland in its own right? Quack Quack Quack even more, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I added what the Cambridge source says about the Catholic aspect and about the history of the law. WP:DYKRULES requires that the article only cite reliable sources. Nor is the article expected to cover all aspects comprehensively; this is not GA review. As for Catholics, and Conservative Catholics to boot, sound like some kind of fringe group, I really have no idea where you got that idea. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You have now, at least in part, addressed this point by adding contextual information to Catholicism being widespread in Poland, if not by also reinstating the link to the related article; I am not saying this needs to be GA quality; at the same time, that it does not need to be does not necessarily mean it should be (kept) as non-GA as possible; where are we with the renaming of the article to "(Poland)" or similar? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg If you make significant changes, you cannot review the article, because you've become WP:INVOLVED. Also, these changes were made without regard to WP:RS and in my opinion did not improve NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    I do wonder if the article title needs disambiguation; many countries have similar laws, after all. When I clicked the link, I fully expected an article about the concept generally, not a legality specific to one country. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93, thanks for your comment. Now moved to Offending religious feelings (Poland). (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I've updated this template page to reflect the article move; the nomination page itself should not be moved. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Any updates to this? There hasn't been any progress in this page in several weeks now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - ?
  • Interesting: Red XN - ?
  • Other problems: Red XN - ?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg Oh dear. This is one of those nom templates where a lot of people come in and spend so much time arguing the toss that the nom doesn't get anywhere, and the resultant confusion holds up progress. As I understand it, there are three basic issues: (1) ALT0 (the only ALT as I write this) is misleading. According to the source, offending religious feelings in Poland is not punishable by jail. It is potentially punishable in three ways - a fine; restriction of liberty (whatever that may involve?); a prison sentence. (2) One or more editors have shown (at some length) a strong doubt about the neutrality of the article; (3) Some editors have voiced strong doubt about either quality of sources or interpretation of sources. It is my own view that ALT0 is misleading, but that problem could be solved with an alternative ALT. The real problem here is the strong controversy about neutrality and sources. I do believe that the article is lacking in a clear section dedicated to recorded rebuttals of complaints about the law. That would probably balance up (at least superficially) the most obvious neutrality issues. I don't believe, however, that we are ever going to resolve the argument about interpretation of the sources, and I think that that is going to kill this nom. If the above editors have responded so strongly in this way, then so may readers of the main page. That puts the article at risk of damage, and all that sort of thing does not benefit Wikipedia or the stability of useful information carried within this article. So I am with a heavy heart requesting the closure of this nomination. Buidhe, if you don't agree with this, fair enough. But please consider the stability of the article. If we close this nom, and if you can then be left in peace to take your time over gradually strengthening the sources and their clear interpretation, you may end up with something really strong and good. Storye book (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Storye book:
    1. The article is stable. It has not been edited since 23 September 2020‎ — almost a month.[7]
    2. It is worth noting that one of the editors objecting to the article, Zezen, was indeffed as a WP:NOTHERE editor. Also, the source that Maculosae tegmine lyncis was pushing to be included was discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard where three uninvolved users argued that the source was unreliable. One of them described Ordo Iuris as "an extremist organization not reliable for the time of day".
    3. The article does not have a criticism section. It does have a section on "Repeal attempts" which have not been successful to date. The sources don't provide the reasons why the repeal efforts didn't succeed (presumably there were not enough votes in favor). Nor was I able to find any one who responded to the opinions of Mieszkowski and Biedron in favor of the law. The section lists international human rights organizations which have opposed the law, but, I could not find any in favor.
    4. The hook is accurate. It states that the crime of offending religious feelings is punishable with a 2 year prison sentence. This is provided for in the law. I don't see an issue since "jail" is a synonym for prison but if necessary this could be changed to "punishable by two years imprisonment". (t · c) buidhe 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OK Buidhe, I'll have another look at it, in the light of the information that you have given. This may take some time. Storye book (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Update. I have checked the dictionary meaning of "punishable" and it means that anyone who commits the particular crime IS punished in a particular way. I cannot find an instance of a dictionary saying that "punishable" by jail means the miscreant could be punished in various ways including that way. To put it another way, ALT0 means that anyone who offends religious feelings in Poland will be punished by imprisonment. The source does not support that fact; the source says that the miscreant may be punished by various methods including possible imprisonment. Could we perhaps have an adjusted ALT with something like "may be punishable by two years in jail"? The word, "jail" is not a problem. (I still have to check through all the rest of the sources in the article, regarding the other matter). Storye book (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is correct. Several RS dictionaries define the term as "liable to punishment" or equivalent, not that it is necessarily used.[8][9][10][11] For an example, this source states that the entire UK had a permanent moratorium on capital punishment after 1973, but "However, several crimes, including treason, remained punishable by death in Great Britain until 1998."[12] (emph added) So it is punishable if the law provides for it, even if not used in practice. (t · c) buidhe 13:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, when the English word "liable" is used in a legal sense, that means "legally responsible", where as in non-legal, casual terms, "liable" means "likely", as in "this person is liable to be late for work" which means they are likely to be late for work, but that will not always be the case. I think that the problem here, is that a fair proportion of readers will understand the hook my way, and another fair proportion may understand it your way. That makes the hook ambiguous. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the statement about the laws of Poland, I think that we need to make sure that all readers will understand exactly what the law is on that matter. We don't need to make the hook longer - just clearer for all readers. Storye book (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg On re-reading all of the above discussion, and the article, I think that the best that we can do for the article's hopes for DYK and for fairness to the creator is to ask for a new review. I wish you all the best, Buidhe. Storye book (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, Storye book, can this potential hook ambiguity be solved by replacing "is punishable" in the original hook with "can be punished"? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't object to that (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree to it too. Thank you, BlueMoonset and Buidhe. I am writing the following ALT having stepped down as a reviewer.
  • ALT1: ... that, in Poland, offending religious feelings can be punished by two years in jail?
  • I'm sorry that I cannot help further with the sources issue. Storye book (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 21[edit]

Yeshivas in World War II

  • ... that the Soviet government sent some students of yeshivas in World War II to do forced labor in Russia's Komi Republic? (Eliach, Rabbi Dov Tales of Devotion (pp. 50-51) "The replacement soldiers who arrived ordered us onto freight boats that took us to the Komi Sasar Republic ... We were taken to Zeschart, a small village ... We were sent to forced labor the very next day ..."
  • ALT1: ... that some of the students of yeshivas in World War II were exiled to labor camps in the remote Komi Republic? (Eliach, Rabbi Dov Tales of Devotion (p. 366) "These sailed up the river, bringing us to our destination on the banks of Vychegda River - the autonomous republic of Komi, which was part of the Soviet Union ... In the end we weren't taken to Siberia, but to a forsaken region to its northwest called Komi-Koli, which is inhabited by a small, impoverished population.")
  • Reviewed: First nomination

Created by Charlie Smith FDTB (talk). Self-nominated at 22:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - I am not convinced that "Tales of Devotion" is a WP:RS. (It is reliable for that Eliach said so, but without corroboration may not be reliable for a factual claim).
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg This is a good start, but needs some work. (Also, the title does not match the topic—it does not discuss the situation of yeshivas outside Europe during World War II.) (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for reviewing my DYK nomination. At Template:Did you know nominations/Yeshivas in World War II, you said that the book, Tales of Devotion, may not be a reliable source. What prompted you to come to that conclusion? Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Smith FDTB, there is no presumption that sources are reliable. I take the perspective that memoirs are not generally reliable, as an individual person may be mistaken or misremember, as well as the possibility of occasional hoaxes. If cited at all, it should be attributed as the claims of so-and-so (unless you can find a reliable secondary source which corroborates the information).
The article also has other issues: some WP:editorializing ("warmly welcomed", "famous", "infamous"), non-cited information, and other sources which are questionable (dead link to "project witness" which, despite its claims, does not appear to be referenced in actual Holocaust research[13]). (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback on the WP:editorializing problems. I intend to fix them as soon as possible, if they're not fixed yet. It may take some time though, as I'm in school and have less time for editing. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Tales of Devotion is not a single memoir. Rather it's composed of conversations that Rabbi Dov Eliach had students in pre-World War II yeshivas. Among the interviewees were two students who were sent to do hard labor in the Komi Republic. As for the Project Witness source, it was a webinar about yeshivas in World War II, likely recorded, although the link may no longer exist.Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, I removed the words "infamous" and "warmly welcomed", although I think the saying that the yeshivas were "famous" is a factual statement. Regarding the non-cited information, were you referring to anything specific? I will try to replace the Projcet Witness reference with more reliable sources. Thank you. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The article still uses unreliable sources such as JewishGen, which are self-published and/or user-generated. Whereas, there are reliable sources that cover the subject:[14][15] (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Smith FDTB Hi any progress on this? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I replaced JewishGen references. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I began this review mainly to see where we are at with this DYK nomination. As far as I can see, all issues raised about sources and wording appear to have been resolved, apart from the sticking point of the validity of the Tales of Devotion as a reliable source. I believe that this can be resolved as suggested above: "it should be attributed as the claims of so-and-so". So please could you check through all the Tales of Devotion citations within the text, and make sure that each relevant bit of text includes something like "Rabbi Dov Eliach says that ..." Once this is done, I believe this nom will be good to go. Note: I have copyedited the article for language style, but have not changed content, and that copyedit does not affect the DYK. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Charlie Smith FDTB: Please see the above review? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • As we have not yet heard from the creator, and the attributions to Rabbi Eilach have still not been put in the article - please could someone else do that? (See my review above, for details). it would be nice to be able to give this nom a green tick, now. Storye book (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 26[edit]

Clinical trials in India

  • as of 2019 1% of all clinical trials globally are clinical trials in India? Source: "The government hopes the rules, effective immediately, will increase and improve clinical research in India, which hosts only 1.2% of the world’s clinical trials despite having a high burden of disease." Vaidyanathan, Gayathri (3 April 2019). "India's clinical-trial rules to speed up drug approvals". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01054-4.

Created by Bluerasberry (talk). Self-nominated at 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New and long enough, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ done. There are two sentences in the "Government regulation" section with unclear citations. Both hook facts check out. This is not a DYK issue, but is there a reason you're repeating the same citations for consecutive sentences? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Thanks for the review.
I repeated citations because I felt this article needed the extra clarity. Someone who felt otherwise could format citations in a different way.
I found those two sentences. The one about the registry I matched with a citation, and the other about state level regulation I removed and put here because I have no citation, and because that sentence needs one. I am working on another wiki article about a trial which had state regulation, but as of now, I have no source for state regulation in general.
Any other comments here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
state level regulation I posted this sentence without a citation. I am removing it from the article and keeping it here in the talk page. "Outside of the central government, each state has its own regional regulatory agencies with some input into governing trials." I could not find a source for this. What I did find is a few cases where state level government ordered inquiries and possibly modification to clinical trials in India, such as for the Indore trial scandal. Although some states have intervened, those cases are not a reason for generalizing, so I am just removing this until and unless anyone identifies sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good to me then! John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why we've been having a rash of hooks trying to prove India is the biggest and best. Striking ALT0 in favor of ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks for selecting a hook. It is fine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not see anything about the Supreme Court making trials safer; there is only something about making them more ethical, with a cite. Could you point out the cited hook fact to me please? Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I re-read the source and you are right, it does not say that they wanted to make trials safer as I wrote. It only says that if the research kills people then there should be compensation, and it makes the claim that paying in case of death would make the trials more ethical. I think other sources talk about safety, and I think safety is the intent, but you are right, I should not be interpreting this source in that way. I wrote another hook which replaces "safer for research participants" with "more ethical", which better matches the source. Thanks for preventing a later potential problem for me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Blue Rasberry: thank you, but while you're writing the hook in an active voice, saying that the Supreme Court ordered this reform, the Supreme Court is not the actor in the article; rather it seems like "government agencies" enacted reforms on their own in this sentence: Following the 2013 case Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India in the Supreme Court of India, various government agencies reformed their regulations to make clinical trials more ethical. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for the feedback. It might be simplest and still accurate to do exactly what you suggest, and say

It is as you say, various government agencies made the changes. I interpreted the sources to say that the 2013 Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India case led to the Supreme Court ordering changes, but as you say, it is not the courts which order changes. As I looked at available sources, I found them to be dodgy about who committed to make the reforms. I am just guessing, but I think the court case identified some chaos and multiple government agencies took some years to sort out their responsibilities. Also, there were 2019 reforms as well, and although I personally cannot see the differences between pre2013, 2013-19, and 2019 onward, I think it may be best to avoid presenting sources about the transition period and just talk about how things are now. I have a new hook and a new source:

  • ALT4: ... that in 2019 the Indian government strengthened laws to protect participants in clinical trials in India? Source: "This document summarizes major changes... by India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ...to safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being of trial subjects"Singh, N; Madkaikar, NJ; Gokhale, PM; Parmar, DV (January 2020). "New drugs and clinical trials rules 2019: Changes in responsibilities of the ethics committee". Perspectives in clinical research. 11 (1): 37–43. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_208_19. PMID 32154148.
  • ALT4a: ... that in 2019 the Indian government strengthened laws to protect participants in clinical trials? --evrik (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that the first proposed hook presents India as "the biggest and best". IMO it presents India as one of the worst. About 17% of people live in India. 1.2% of clinical trials are happening there. That means that India is doing 1/15th of its 'fair share' of medical research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: thanks for ALT4, but you have "India" twice in the hook. I'm looking at the article section 2013 to 2019 and it seems like the paragraphs are jumbled up. There's a half-sentence in there and the rest doesn't flow smoothly. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry and Yoninah: I'm offering an Alt. Evrik (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Yes the content in that section was jumbled. I just edited it to fix the omission and try to make it easier to read. See changes at special:diff/981036200/983037404.
@Evrik: Yes I support ALT4a, this is the core message. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg ALT4a has been approved by reviewers and the creator (I have struck out the rest). All issues are fine and/or have been resolved - except for neutrality in my opinion. In the Comparison section, it states that "India is an attractive place for both Indian and foreign clinical research for various reasons", then the rest of the paragraph states those good reasons. However the Gupta 2014 source says that "Few years ago, India was considered a preferred destination for conducting clinical trials", then it mentions incidents, problems with the Media, debate, attempts to resolve matters and a need to resolve things further. It may be that the source is only a summary of the article, and maybe the original article does back up the "attractive place" phrase, but the online summary does not give that impression. So I suggest that you either re-write that paragraph to fit the Gupta 2014 source, or find a source which supports that paragraph. If this matter of neutrality can be resolved, then I believe this article can be passed for DYK. Storye book (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: That makes sense, let me review the text and sources. I will do that by end of day tomorrow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Bluerasberry. To tell the truth, I have been rather worried that there may be more sources which do not match your text. Please would you kindly check right through the whole article to make sure that there are no more situations where the source does not support the text? The DYK elves do thorough checks, and we don't want your nomination to be thrown out of prep. It's better to check now than later. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Storye book: I will look again and reconsider my words. Right now I have not thought it through. Let me read and think some more. Thanks for your candor, I would rather hear this now rather than later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Bluerasberry. This article is about a serious and important subject, and I know you will do your best to get it right. Storye book (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I need an additional day. I will finish responding by end of day Sunday 18 October. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: I made some edits which I think are an improvement to various parts of the article. I am still ready to make further changes on request and with more time. The particular issue above was me naming advantages and saying that they made India "attractive". I balanced this by citing a source which has section headings for various favorable characteristics and unfavorable characteristics of research in India.

  • Perkovic, Vlado; Patil, Vinodvenkatesh; Wei, Liu; Lv, Jicheng; Petersen, Marisa; Patel, Anushka (July 2012). "Global Randomized Trials: The Promise of India and China:". The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. 94 (Suppl 1): 92–96. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00274.

I added some of those challenges and also changed the "attractive" statements to "attractive and challenging", so that characteristics of all kinds appear together. As for the word "attractive", I considered changing it to favorable, advantageous, but have not done so. If the word still seems distracting even with the challenges counterbalancing it, then I will think more about it or seek suggestions from others. For now, this is what I have. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT4a. Thank you, Blue Rasberry for your updates on the article. As far as I can see, you have resolved all the above issues. The article covers a big subject, so no doubt more updates will be needed in future, but for now I believe that the article should be OK for DYK. Thank you for all your had work. Storye book (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT4a, but while the source may be saying the law was designed to protect participants in clinical trials, the article only says that the law provided more guidance for how the ethics committee of a clinical trial should oversee it. Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Citation 1, page x in the article is about guidelines, not the law - I agree. But that page does refer to "providing adequate protection to the vulnerable population," and the guidelines are there to strengthen the law which is what the hook ALT4a is about. Citation 2, which is appended to a sentence about the 2019 law at the beginning of the header, is untranslatable for my pc, but if it's about publicly documenting clinical trials then I should have thought that that involved protecting trial-participants? @Blue Rasberry: @Evrik: Have you got a better citation for ALT4a? Storye book (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Returning to WP:DYKN until issues are sorted out. Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 1[edit]

Marian Anderson

Marian Anderson
Marian Anderson
  • ... that African-American contralto Marian Anderson (pictured) was denied permission by the Daughters of the American Revolution to sing at Constitution Hall in 1939, causing thousands of its members to resign? In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) denied permission to Anderson for a concert on April 9 at Constitution Hall under a "white performers-only" policy in effect at the time. . . . As a result of the ensuing furor, thousands of DAR members, including First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, resigned from the organization.
    • ALT1:... that African-American contralto Marian Anderson (pictured) was a significant figure in the American civil rights movement, singing for benefit concerts at the NAACP and at the 1963 March on Washington? She was active in supporting the civil rights movement during the 1960s, giving benefit concerts for the Congress of Racial Equality, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the America-Israel Cultural Foundation. In 1963, she sang at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Improved to Good Article status by Ahsoka Dillard (talk). Self-nominated at 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC).

Symbol voting keep.svg Substantial GA on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - The iconic image is licensed and almost must. I learned a lot reading! I knew that she was the first African-American at the Met, but didn't know it was her only role there. I like the original hook a bit better, but perhaps only because I'd have to look up NAACP ;) - I'd probably say that Sibelius dedicated a piece to her. Finland seems not regarded as Europe then? I'd say "recital tour" instead of "singing tour". Do know what she sang for her first in Carnegie Hall? ... or anything more detailed about repertoire? Just curious, having written some of Jessye Norman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The QPQ is not a full review, but as the nominator has less than 5 DYK credits, no QPQ is necessary. Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hi, I came by to promote ALT0 to an image slot, but the hook is over 200 char. We see she's African-American. Can we delete that?
  • There is also close paraphrasing from the sources:
  • Source: In the late 1930's, she gave about 70 recitals a year in the United States. But her fame did not entirely eradicate the prejudice she confronted as a young black singer touring the United States.
  • Article: In the late 1930s, Anderson gave about 70 recitals a year in the United States. Although by then quite famous, her stature did not completely end the prejudice she confronted as a young black singer touring the United States.
  • Source: In 1980, the United States Treasury Department coined a half-ounce gold commemorative medal with her likeness, and in 1984 she was the first recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award of the City of New York.
  • Article: In 1980, the United States Treasury Department coined a half-ounce gold commemorative medal with her likeness, and in 1984 she was the first recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award of the City of New York.
  • And why is there so much copying from the Western Connecticut State University site? Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, Could you verify when the Western Connecticut State University site page was written and published? Is it possible that WCSU copied from Wikipedia? When you look at the citations for those sections, they do not cite the WCSU copy as the source. Please let me know. Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not know how to check that. The website is copyright 2018. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that the entire university website was certainly present in 2018. From the wayback machine, the Marian Anderson History Page was captured on June 22. I've been trying to search the page for when the fundraising campaign began, but to no avail. I began revising the article in July to be considered for GA status. As a trained historian, I would not have used this page as a source because I understand the 5 Tenets of Wikipedia and went through a 10-week Scholars and Scientist course through WikiEdu this past spring. Please feel free to review my article history and to confirm that the sources within Wikipedia are correct. I suspect that WCSU copied from Wikipedia. Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah and Ahsoka Dillard, I did note on the GAC review that two websites had copied the Wikipedia article verbatim, and that only one bothered to acknowledge it. I should have left urls in the review, but I didn't - my error. WCSU specifically credited their entire biographical text to Wikipedia. I thought it was odd that, given their naming their school for the performing arts after her, that they would not dig into their own records and write an original bio of her contributions. That declaration seems to have been removed, as I see nothing on the WCSU page that credits Wikipedia. Without urls, I can't recall the other website I noticed. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, Ahsoka Dillard, Gerda Arendt: Thanks to Alanna the Brave, I can at least account for some verbatim copying from Wikipedia to other sites, other than WCSU: diff. She was unable to help with the WCSU issue, but in my leaky memory, I'm pretty sure I saw that Wikipedia attribution somewhere on their site. But not now. So, how do we resolve this issue? — Maile (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: I think you rewrite the phrases that are coming up as close paraphrasing so there will be no doubts. Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah and Maile66, yes! I will get those phrases rewritten. Will take a closer look to see if there are more. Ping you back, later.Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ahsoka Dillard: Please see this Earwig's report highlighting the excessive close paraphrasing that remains. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    (watching:) I don't see why Wikipedia's text has to be changed, just because others copied it which is permitted. (And then when it's changed, another site copies that version, and we need to change again, or what?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • If that is happening, that as soon as we update the text, the other website copies it, how do we verify that? How do we calculate when the other website uploads the new text? Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
      I'm not deeply into this, but remember Jessye Norman: hard work to rephrase what was similar to another site, and thinking all the time that the other site probably took it from us ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, still remaining in the article of reliable sites that clearly published before we did. I am very surprised that it was not identified in the GA review. Maile, I went through the top six sites identified by Earwig, and while it's clear that WCSU copied from Wikipedia, the article is too close to the New York Times obituary in the "70 recitals" and Eleanor Roosevelt Award material, and the second paragraph in the "1939 Lincoln Memorial Concert" section is mostly copied from the Washington Spark source (none of the material was in the article the day prior to the Spark publication). The BlackPast material doesn't seem to be an issue (the 57.6 score was 29.6 when comparing BlackPast to the article as it stood the day before that source was published, and the similarities then and now look to be names of organizations and the like), UPenn appears to be standard names/phrases/sources, and PBS appears to be based on long quotes. When I realized that two of the top six Earwig reports were actual problems, I stopped at that point, since the article needs going over by someone who is particularly skilled at identifying close paraphrasing/copyvio issues. If Nikkimaria feels it's worth her time, it would be great if she could check, but if she'd rather wait until the issues I've identified are dealt with, I can understand. Even though the GA review was passed seven weeks ago, perhaps it should be reopened to address these issues; as it stands right now, it does not meet the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ahem. As mentioned above, I did indeed miss the copyvio from WCSU, or somehow in that review saw something that made me believe they had copied Wikipedia. However, please see what I mentioned above, that Alanna the Brave, can at least account for some verbatim copying from Wikipedia to other sites, other than WCSU: diff. Unless something else has come up since she posted and ran a copyvio of her own, it's only the WCSU site that is copied. But as I also mentioned above, somehow in my GA review, I remember seeing a notation that they also copied from Wikipedia. But that's neither here nor there now, so ... we still deal with the other. If something else has cropped up, it was at least after Alanna the Brave did her run through. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Maile, it is clear, at least to me, that the WCSU copied Wikipedia without attribution: this is a page set up there for a current campaign to raise money for a Marian Anderson institute or department or somesuch, and hasn't been around nearly long enough as compared to the Wikipedia article. I'm sure there are other sites out there that have copied Wikipedia as well. My point is that there are at least two sites where the material existed prior to the information's introduction to the Wikipedia article, and that needs to be dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, at least we agree on WCSU - I feel better about that one, now. But what other two sites are you talking about? Of the two Alanna the Brave linked, I think one of them actually attributed Wikipedia as their source, and the other one was determined by the dates she saw to have copied from Wikipedia. — Maile (talk)
  • Maile, I mentioned them in my post starting this thread: the New York Times obituary (source 1) and the Washington Spark article (source 27). They're the second and sixth entries on Earwig. As noted, I stopped after finding these, since it was clear that the article here had issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ahsoka Dillard, Yoninah, Alanna the Brave, Gerda Arendt - I guess all I can do here is say I messed up on the GAC review, and apologize. Hopefully, one or more persons here can help fix this. It's been a long day other than Wikipedia, and I'm already worn out. No more today, please. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Maile66 I'll dig into the article the upcoming weeks. As a new editor, the GA and DYK process has been a learning experience to say the least. Thanks to all that have looked at this. Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ahsoka Dillard - Been there, done that, except that my first experience was with a completely trashed Audie Murphy, beset by a semi-vandal, who disrupted all the way. You'll never forget the skills you learn here. Everyone here wants you to succeed. Thanks for sticking with this. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: @BlueMoonset:. I have rephrased the article (diff) in respect of the copyvio referred to above (I ignored WCSU on the understanding that they copied WP). Being in UK, I cannot access one of the sources, so please would you kindly check that all issues are now resolved. As far as I am aware, the only similarities remaining are the proper names and titles. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I see close paraphrasing from the University of Pennsylvania source:
  • Source: She visited Eastern European capitals and Russia and returned again to Scandinavia, where "Marian fever" had spread to small towns and villages where she had thousands of fans.
  • Article: She visited Eastern European capitals and Russia and returned again to Scandinavia, where "Marian fever" had spread to small towns and villages where she had thousands of fans.
  • Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. That must have been the source that I could not access. Storye book (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset asked me to comment on potential other paraphrasing concerns here. I did see some content in the Early life section that was previously cited to this and closely enough to warrant quoting. I also found that there are a number of sources other than WCSU that copied or likely copied from this article, which complicates things - myblackhistory, Hollywood Walk of Fame, and this book all have publication dates (or earliest archive dates) postdating the content here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I have paraphrased the copyvio from the NY Times (and cited it), as referred to by Nikkimaria. I have not dealt with the other points raised by Nikkimaria; that is a matter for others to decide. Storye book (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 20[edit]

Lion Attacking a Dromedary

"Lion Attacking a Dromedary"
"Lion Attacking a Dromedary"

Created by Guerillero (talk). Self-nominated at 02:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

Hook eligibility:

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

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: Green tickY
  • Used in article: Green tickY
  • Clear at 100px: Red XN - I would prefer excluding the pic since it is not very discernable at 100px (it is a bit difficult to distinguish the subject from the background at that size)
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough, text OK and seems well-sourced and free of plagiarism (Earwig is at 20% but that's mostly because of proper nouns etc). All hooks are OK and they are cited and interesting (I would prefer ALT1 or ALT3). I took the liberty of correcting a typing error in ALT0 by changing "1989" to "1898". Regarding ALT1, I would suggest changing "male" to "man" since the former could refer to one of the animals rather than the human. QPQ done. I don't like the pic at 100px as stated above, but everything else seems good to go. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. The source for ALT3 doesn't mention anything about the Black Lives Matter movement, but to demonstrations (which were held by numerous groups). Please fix that fact/source in the article. If this is running without the image, I find it far more hooky that human remains were found inside the plastic diorama. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • But there are many groups involved in these protests. And the source doesn't mention Black Lives Matter. Yoninah (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Guerillero: well, if you could provide another source that explicitly links the decision to either Black Lives Matter or the George Floyd protests, then yes. The way it is, the source you're using only credits the decision to protests against police brutality in the United States. Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nominator has not responded in 2 weeks. I left a last notice at his talk page. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Three Warfares

Created/expanded by ArvindPalaskar (talk), DiplomatTesterMan (talk), Georgethedragonslayer (talk). Nominated by ArvindPalaskar (talk) at 16:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I formatted this nomination template and also moved the page to Three warfares, as it is not some official policy that needs capitalization. I notice in the article that you are occasionally capitalizing other kinds of "warfare" and suggest that you lowercase it. Additionally, the hook repeats the word "warfare" four times. Surely DiplomatTesterMan can help you write a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Let me try... DTM (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Review

Policy compliance:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg We could use more Chinese input to this. For example, what is the literal meaning of the phrase (three kinds (of) war law?). Google suggests "three tactics" as a translation which seems to be better English. What is the current Chinese view and how does it fit into their overall geopolitical strategy? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Noted. DTM (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Andrew The article is a warfare doctrine and strategy. There will be strong opposing views. You can't defend warfare strategies all the time.
Google suggests "three tactics". I don't think we are going by google's view since academics and nearly all articles I have come across use "warfare". I stumbled across this myself too and clarified the usage of warfare. Better English just doesn't work here. DTM (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That said, I will work on the points raised. DTM (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Lastly, you wrote Characterising China's use of the law and media as "warfare" seems tendentious.. Did you even read the article, even a bit? DTM (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I read the article and I have just taken another look. Let's start with the lead:
  1. The lead gives the phrase in Simplified Chinese characters and pinyin but does not provide a literal translation. As this is the English language Wikipedia, our readership cannot be expect to read Chinese.
  2. The lead also styles this as the 3Ws but I'm not sure that this is a standard abbreviation
  3. The lead does not say what the three different components are
  4. The lead references the amended Regulations on the Political Work of the People’s Liberation Army (2003) but doesn't provide much context. The PLA has lots of rules and regulations which are regularly revised.([16]) Why are we cherry-picking this particular detail from them and emphasising it? Is it still current?
  5. The lead then gives the opinions of a couple of think-tanks. Are these impartial or do they represent the strategic interests of their respective nations -- Australia and USA?
  6. When the lead concludes by saying that "is a strategic option that is underway all the time", this suggests a state of cold war in which China's statements are not to be taken at face value and in good faith, but as aggressive and devious. This seems to be an expression of Anti-Chinese sentiment.
  7. If we read about psychological warfare, we find that most great powers do this sort of thing, going back centuries. Is the Chinese doctrine anything special or is it just standard military thinking? Is this not just the latest form of words expressing the idea that it's smart to dominate without fighting -- an idea that goes back to Sun Tsu?
Now this is just my take on the topic but, as a reviewer, I am supposed to challenge nominations with respect to core policy such as WP:NPOV. As the Chinese tend to react hotly to suggestions that they are bad people, we should be careful before we go splashing this onto the front page. As Wikipedia is banned in China, I don't suppose that we're going to get much help from inside the country but perhaps some editor such as User:Deryck Chan can help?
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks Andrew and I've delved into this and checked the sources. Here's what I understand about this topic:

  1. Basically, this "three warfares" strategy first came into public discourse via international observers' testimonies. Almost all the Chinese-language articles I can find are responses to international publications about this strategy. (e.g. [17][18][19][20] - note, some of these are banned from being used in Wikipedia article citations)
  2. These Chinese-language reports parroted the international media reports rather matter-of-factly, without challenging the content. Notably even Chinese state media Huanqiu parroted without much original commentary. This, and the strength of international sources, give credence to the verity of the "three warfares" strategy's details.
  3. "Three warfares" is the English term used by the vast majority of sources cited by this article. There is no reason to change that.
  4. I don't see any sources using the "3W's" abbreviation. @DiplomatTesterMan: Please provide a source.
  5. I guess one could say "三种战法" is better translated "three strategies" than "three warfares", but I don't feel strongly about this.
  6. With all these in mind, I guess we could caveat both the DYK hook and the lead section of the article with "According to international observers, Three Warfares is...". But again I don't feel strongly about this.
  7. Concerning possible Chinese establishment backlash if this goes onto Main Page, I really wouldn't worry about it. It seems that this topic first emerged into public view through international media a decade ago. As Andrew said, Wikipedia is banned in China. And each hook only gets 8 hours on Main Page. I seriously doubt that Chinese censors will even care, but - disclaimer - I don't claim any responsibility if DiplomatTesterMan gets banned by China as a result of getting this article onto Main Page. Face-smile.svg

--Deryck C. 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew and Deryck, thank you both for the above points which I am seeing only now; I will make changes to the article accordingly.
Thank you for the light hearted humour of the disclaimer and the seriously improbable chance of all this leading to a ban. DTM (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is about a policy/doctrine announced by the CCP's subsidiary organization. See [21][22] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Addressing the points raised by Andrew

  1. Done. English translation provided.
  2. Done. 3W's removed.
  3. Done. 3 components added to the lead.
  4. to do
  5. Done. Moved to other section, location of source mentioned inline; or integrated
  6. This line has been shifted to a section titled "commentary"
  7. to do; but Sun Tsu is mentioned in the article

Addressing the points raised by Deryck

  1. No changes in article needed
  2. No changes in article needed
  3. No changes in article needed
  4. Done. 3W's no longer used in article.
  5. Done. "three strategies" added to lead.
  6. to do
  7. No changes in article needed

DTM (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for responding to my comments! I'm not sure what sources 3 and 4 are for? It seems that you're trying to justify the "three tactics" translation but the sources are in Chinese. Also it's been a week since this comment, are you still working on the DYK nomination? Deryck C. 00:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Andrew, Deryck, thanks for pointing out 3 & 4. I won't be able to fix all the errors in this article within the stipulated DYK nom timeframe, though I will continue to make improvements slowly over a period of time irrespective of this DYK nom. I myself had shyed away from nominating this as a DYK nom so soon because I knew it would take some time to shape this article. I don't mind if this DYK nom is closed. If the others listed, and the nominator, ArvindPalaskar, want to carry on with it, please do so. Cheers. DTM (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for the updates. A DYK nomination can remain open for months and so there's plenty of time available, if needed. I'll take another look through the article and see if it's nearly ready now. Perfection is not required – that's a different department! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Andrew Davidson: From my point of view the article and the hook are both good enough for DYK. The fact that Chinese state media also give same details about the Three Warfares rather matter-of-factly has convinced me that the current presentation of the article complies with NPOV. In my opinion the remaining suggestions are optional for DYK, but you're the reviewer so it's your call. Deryck C. 16:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've made some more changes, some as per suggestions above.
  • The initial point made by Yoninah, Surely DiplomatTesterMan can help you write a better hook, still stands. Though if Andrew thinks the current hook is fine, and no one can come up with a better hook...Deryck... then I guess this is coming closer to being given that green tick. Thanks for being so considerate everyone with the timelines.DTM (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think an alternate hook is going to emmerge. alt0 is passable? DTM (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, the hook is not going to pass with four repetitions of the word "warfare". Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 22[edit]

Fred Bang, Betsy Bang

  • ... that Fred and Betsy Bang were introduced by a 700-pound (320 kg) gorilla called Marmaduke?
  • Reviewed: Three Warfares; Timothy S. Matthews
  • Comment: The articles were created some time ago but have lately been expanded. Fred has certainly been expanded x5 and Betsy is getting there. They make a natural pair and the story of their first meeting can be read at The Conversation.

5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Fred Bang: Article length is 2,232 chars, but assessed as stub. Needs re-assesing at lest as start. It was expanded at least five-fold, was nominated on due time, and is neutral. It cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports moderate text similarities for four sources. They can be easily reworded. the fact "introduced by a 700-pound gorilla called Marmaduke" is not contained in the article. Betsy Bang: Article's expansion began at 952 chars on 17 Speptember, one week before the DYK nomination. It was 2,886 chars long at the nomination date, which does not meet the five-fold condition. It is assesed as stub, which is not any more. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports moderate text similarities for four sources. They can be easily reworded. The hook fact is cited offline, for which I AGF. It is interesting. Its length is within limit. The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. It is contained in both articles. QPQ was done. CeeGee 11:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Both are now rated C. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - ?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I am giving this nomination a second review because (a) time has passed, (b) the nomination template shows almost no progression beyond the first review, and (c) the article Betsy Bang (in my opinion) is unlikely to be expanded sufficiently any time soon. I have therefore taken the liberty of un-bolding the Betsy Bang link, so that this review deals only with Fred Bang. If you agree with my response, then the remaining issues are as follows: (1) ALT0 is fine, but I suggest that we have "Betsy and Fred Bang" so that Fred gets his full name linked. So please could we have an ALT1 identical to ALT0 but with the phrase "Betsy and Fred Bang"? (2) The four plagiarised sentences/phrases are still there - please rephrase them or put them in quotation marks? They are, "in applying marine biology to medical research", "as assistant professor of medicine in 1946. In 1953, he was named chairman of the department of parasitology at the School of", "in the United States Army Medical Corps, he directed research studies on malaria and other tropical diseases in Australia, New Guinea, the Philippines and Japan.", "to Sweden and West Germany to present scientific papers". (3) The hook and its citation are not in the Fred Bang article. Please put them in? Notes: I have accepted your Timothy S. Matthews review for QPQ, so your other review can now be set against another nomination if needed. Also, if you disagree with me un-bolding Betsy Bang, then please accept my apologies and please re-bold that link. However in that case you will need another review of Betsy Bang when the article has been expanded five times. Storye book (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Please see the above new review. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Storye book: Thanks for the reminder. I was discouraged by what's happened here but may yet regain my enthusiasm. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: I don't think you need to be discouraged. CeeGee's initial review was helpful and constructive, showing you exactly how to improve the article to DYK standards. There has been no editorial interference on the article page since the DYK nomination date, which is good - you have been left in full control of the article. If there is anything that you don't agree with or understand, or if you need help with anything, please let us (or other editors) know. We are all here to improve WP. You have two interesting articles here, about two important scientists, and any contribution we make to the improvement of that type of article is worthwhile. Keep up the good work. Storye book (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 23[edit]

Polish folk dances

Created/expanded by MandatoryStudentAccount (talk). Self-nominated at 00:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

  • Comments by Tbhotch

General eligibility:

  • New Enough: Green tickY
  • Long Enough: Red XN - The article had around 3,829 characters before the expansion. It currently has around 9,750 of the 19,145 characters required for a 5x expansion.

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - Yes and no. The hook is never mentioned or sourced directly, but through WP:Synthesis. An appropriate link(s) that verify it is required.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg QPQ unrequired (first DYK nomination). @MandatoryStudentAccount: There are several issues listed above. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 28[edit]

Gerberian Shepsky

Dolce
Dolce
  • ... that the FBI's first therapy dog was a Gerberian Shepsky named Dolce (pictured)?
    • ALT1:... that ...?
  • Reviewed: To be done
  • Comment: 5 x expanded from 28 September

5x expanded by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 09:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Date created from a redirect fine, as is the length. The hook cite needs to be inline. There are several problem citiation tags and also the GNG tag at the top which will need to be sorted @Philafrenzy: and @Whispyhistory:. A QPQ is also needed. The picture licence is fine but the image is not currently in the article. No close paraphrasing. But these issues need sorting before I can pass it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Some users are trying to have this dog put-down and buried in the pet cemetery of list of cross-breeds with a short obituary. In pursuit of this they have thrown every tag they can think of at the article but I think there's life in this dog yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
That is because there is not one WP:RELIABLE source that uses this name. "Some users" do not want Wikipedia to become a laughing stock. Refer Talk:Gerberian Shepsky#Did you know nomination - the issue has not been resolved. William Harris (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It may be the Common Name now. That's how it works - someone makes up a common name and some of them gain traction and stick. Even if not, the article can easily be moved to "German Shepherd-Huskie cross" or something similar. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, your response above appears to be an admission that it may be WP:TOOSOON for this as an independent article. Cavalryman (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
You are confused. My comment was about the article title. Toosoon relates to notability which matter was settled in the AFD. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No, notability was not established for this article at AfD, please show me where it was. There is one source. Cavalryman (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
Nine sources in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Philafrenzy I have no desire for conflict, the sources just don’t stack up. Only one uses the name and comes close to WP:SIGCOV, the other eight are fleeting mentions three of which are inconsistent with the definition of this crossbreed. Cavalryman (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

There is no reference which states "that the FBI's first therapy dog was a Gerberian Shepsky named Dolce". That remains a fact. Therefore, that statement should not appear as a DYK. William Harris (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dolores Cabrera y Heredia

Dolores Cabrera y Heredia
Dolores Cabrera y Heredia

Created by Nick Number (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 02:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

  • @SandyGeorgia: You said that, the text was "not verified by sources" and that there were "source-to-text integrity issues". Care to elaborate? @Nick Number: please take note. Also, I am posting this at GOCE. --evrik (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I will try flagging them tomorrow while on a long drive home, but be forewarned ... typing on iPad from hotspot in car = many typos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • With a quick look only ... What happened here seems to be a mixing up of sources between the original Spanish version and the translated English version, such that text is not found in the cited sources, but is found in other sources by tracing back to the Spanish version. The hook is not found in the cited source, nor is the year of her marriage, although that info is found in other sources cited as in the Spanish version. I have not yet found where she followed her husband to three locations named, but the hook is not correctly cited and all of this needs sorting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The evocative power of violets comes from this source: [23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That source is cited after "She identifies that love with the flowers that give the work its title". If you think it's unclear, a second named ref could go after "whose aroma transported her to her childhood". Nick Number (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The hook should be explicitly cited in DYKs, so that should be switched out, or both added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This source does NOT say she married in 1856;[24] it says she returned to Madrid in 1856, and there she married ... but this source says she married in 1856.[25].
Footnote 1 (cellit.es) supports that she returned to Madrid and married, and footnote 3 (ramhg.es) references the entire paragraph, including the marriage year. My thinking was that this was close enough in the text per WP:CITEFOOT, and that these facts aren't particularly contentious, but if you think it's unclear, a second named ref for ramhg.es could go after the first sentence. Things moved a little from the Spanish original because it didn't list her husband's death year, and its paragraph ends with "Este matrimonio fue apadrinado por los reyes", which is an expression I wasn't entirely clear on and omitted. Nick Number (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The "apadrinado" means that the royals were godparents at their wedding ... godfathers in Spanish for a wedding is something similar to best man and maid of honor-- it would be interesting information to include, but I can understand leaving it out if we have to fudge to explain it. Another oddity is that one of those two sources says her date of death is not established, and yet it seems that it is. Yes, it is better to attach the specific citation to each piece cited, as I was initially doing a copyvio/close paraphrasing check, so getting to the exact citation is helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That is two mixed up sources, and I haven’t yet found the travel with her husband. That is all I have time for. The good news is I have not found copyvio or too close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The travel with her husband appears to have originally come from here (though it is not cited at that point in the Spanish original). I was leery of referencing a Wordpress post, even though this one does appear to be well written. It draws on the biography from El Correo de la Moda, but pages 261 and 262 of that, covering her life after 1850, are unfortunately missing from the online copy at BNE. Nick Number (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
With DYKs, the main issue is that the hook be cited, so Evrik should be sure to fix that piece as I noted above. Unless you can cite the business that she moved around with her husband, it would be best left off. I am unsure if you are saying there is a non-wordpress source that cites it, and I'm out of time on this particular review. Nice work, though! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Number: Can you please adjust the citations in the article? --evrik (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Nick Number, one thing you may find useful is to make use of the quote= paramater in the citation templates (along with the trans-title parameter for translation of titles) to single out the piece of the text from the source you are citing, to make it easier for WP:NONENG verification and copyvio check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hermandad Lírica, Dolores Cabrera y Heredia

Dolores Cabrera y Heredia
Dolores Cabrera y Heredia

Created by Evrik (talk) and SandyGeorgia (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 19:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg This was nominated previously as Template:Did you know nominations/Dolores Cabrera y Heredia, and is now a double nomination. The above review-set is for both articles. There is one issue, of sources: Dolores Cabrera y Heredia is not fully sourced. Some guidance on sources is given by SandyGeorgia in the abovementioned template. Hermandad Lírica appears to be fully sourced, although I have not checked every source. Two QPQs have been done by Evrik (one is listed here; one is listed on the abovementioned template). Note: The image is free and used in both articles. I have corrected the image licence because it is out of copyright. Thank you to Evrik, Nick Number and SandyGeorgia for two really intriguing articles; I must brush up my rusty Spanish and see if I can read some of the poems, though I guess I would miss most of the ambiguities - and that's the interesting bit! Storye book (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 1[edit]

Aomori Prefecture

Potsherds from the Odai Yamamoto I site
Potsherds from the Odai Yamamoto I site
  • ... that Japan's oldest pottery was found in Aomori Prefecture? Source: "Potshards and arrowheads have been discovered along with stones showing technical features of the Paleolithic era. Radiocarbon dating of carbonized material adhering to a potshard reveals that it is approximately 15,000 years old, which is the oldest pottery in Japan," [27]
    • ALT1:... that 59 percent of Japan's apples were grown in Aomori Prefecture in 2018? Source: "りんごの収穫量（しゅうかくりょう）は445,500トン（2018年）で、全国の半分以上（約59パーセント）をしめています。 " [28])

Improved to Good Article status by Mccunicano (talk). Self-nominated at 00:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg ALT1 is preferred. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg The GA review is being reopened due to a problematic review, so while this article was nominated for DYK in good faith, the nomination needs to wait until the GA promotion has been confirmed or undone. Putting this nomination on hold until the process has been completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 2[edit]

1998 North Sumatra gubernatorial election

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 11:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg The uncited bits appear to be straightforward info, so citing them shouldn't be too hard. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 10:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg AGF on Indonesian-language sources. By the way, Jeromi Mikhael, should the last sentence instead read "fixing the bureaucracy and serving the people's needs."? feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 14:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. I did some editing for English grammar and also tagged some words that didn't make sense. There's also a dead link. The hook also doesn't read well. What does nominated as the candidate mean? Did their parties nominate them, or did they file for candidacy themselves? And what happened to everyone? Why were only three candidates chosen? Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Piccadilly line

  • Reviewed: Shukri al-Asali
  • Comment: A December 15 date for the line's anniversary is kindly appreciated. The article may go through a GAR so I suggest leaving this onhold after a review is done. Thank you <3 Another note: I also would love to know whether a picture should be inserted into this nom :D

Improved to Good Article status by Vincent60030 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

Symbol voting keep.svg Interesting line, fine substantial GA on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF. I'm [only] approving 2 ALTs, to make life easier for the prep builder. I'm sorry, but believe that 15 December is asking too much, - 6 weeks is max unless we make an exception. None of the images looks exceptional to represent the line (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg As Vincent60030 noted, the GA review was problematic and a new review there will need to be done. This is being put on hold until the new GA review has been completed and the article properly listed. So it is possible that the GA status may not be awarded until much closer to December 15, in which case the nomination might be eligible for the special occasion after all, though it's unlikely that it will take a month to complete the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am attempting to request for 15 December because I have really worked hard on adjusting the timings for this promotion, as well as on the GA, but the GA review was cut short, and yes as what BlueMoonset stated, GAR/re-GAN may appear soon seen here so yea. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: In ALT1 above, is it seriously intended to call "Buckingham Palace" just "Buckingham"? I hope it is an error, as it is not a usable form. Could you please clarify? Thanks DBaK (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Yes, I did intend it to be put that way because it sounded more quirky lol. But if the word Palace is in there it kind of gives away the quirkyness. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Vincent60030: OK and thanks so much for the reply. It's your nom and I am not going to put up a big fight but I would like to note that I really really hate it! Sorry. :) I think it sounds not quirky, but simply like you don't know the difference. It is not something that someone ever says for the palace, so it makes you sound, ermm, ignorant (sorry, sorry, this is getting terribly rude!) or like a visitor from overseas who doesn't know the difference or contracts things they don't understand. The quirk doesn't work - it falls flat. It would be like saying "The Heath" for "Heathrow" or something ... the meaning just isn't there. Just nooooooo. Gosh, I am sorry, I am going on like my Granny – not a good thing. I have had my say and will now stfu as I understand the young people charmingly put it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    @DBaK: more like I should be the one feeling sorry that I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to as all I go for is quirkyness which kinda disregarded cultural forbidden omissions. I do admit that I would do the same for DYKs of my local area but I am sure there can be a compromise. We'll see how it goes as I am not a British expert and I guess I am not in a position to even comment about it. How about I ask for some opinions from @Redrose64 and Ritchie333:? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    To add on to this, well I do know Buckingham is a place name so I wouldn't say I haven't a clue but...I guess I apologise. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Vincent60030: absolutely nothing to apologize for here! If anything it should be me, for getting out of my pram about trivia. I wish I had realized you weren't British – I would have been much, much nicer about this! Sorry. And seeing what those two megaexperts think is a brilliant idea – I have the highest respect for their views. If either of them tells me to just shut up and go and put the kettle on I am right there! Thank you for your fantastically civilized approach to this unmajor issue. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    Using simply "Buckingham" is not a good idea, it's not a place nor is it named after a place. Buckingham Palace is named after the Dukes of Buckingham, who until 1761 owned the land upon which the palace was subsequently built. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    I hope y'all understand that I moved this discussion to below the nomination. What do you think of not mentioning Buckingham at all in an ALT1a? Even quirkier with just Heathrow and Harrods, no, and Ha Ha? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    ALT1a:... that Heathrow and Harrods are on the Piccadilly line? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    Personally, I think that ALT4 is by far the most interesting proposed; that various landmarks can be traveled to on a particular transit line has nowhere near the same interest, and I don't see the "quirky" attraction to either of the ALT1 variants. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
    I'd approve it but wait for the GA proceedings, hopefully to the end of the month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Piotr Potworowski

Created by Samdutton (talk). Self-nominated at 10:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think we can relax the newness rules a bit in this case. Samdutton has relatively little recent experience editing, and hence may not be as familiar with our rules. Plus, at 61 verified hooks, our DYK backlog is quite small. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 14:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Despite this, I see that a lot of this article is unsourced. @Samdutton: note that DYK requires each paragraph to have at least one inline citation. Please ensure that everything in this article is sourced and verifiable. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 15:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The source of this content is the subject's son. Can I add a citation like that? ('Conversation with the artist's son, xx September 2019', or similar?) (talk)
  • @Samdutton: If you obtained the information by personally talking to the subject's son, unfortunately this would fall under original research, and any such content where the only source is the subject's son would have to be removed. You may have better luck if you can get him to publish an article covering what he told you, in which case it would likely be usable as a WP:PRIMARY source. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 14:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Feminist: OK — thanks for the heads-up. I'll ask the subject's son for citations (since the dates, etc., are actually taken from books about the subject rather than from memory). (talk)
  • @Samdutton: Great. Add the books as inline citations, and make sure that every paragraph is sourced. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 13:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Feminist: Added citations provided by the subject's son.
  • @Samdutton: Unfortunately some statements still lack citations, such as the last paragraph under the Life section which concerns his death, and the last sentence of the fourth paragraph. Ensure that every statement is sourced. feminist (talk) | free Thailand 11:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 4[edit]

Portrait of Sir David Webster

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 13:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment For a variety of reasons, it would be better to rephrase as follows:

Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Interesting painting and destiny, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. I prefer the ALT, but think a comma is missing after London, or we could drop London. I am not happy with piping the title of the painting, because the name of the person portrayed would at least connect the ROH to the painting for those who know. No hook reader will get to know about the lonesome tulips and the "icily arrogant" scene ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Could a WP:FAIRUSE image of the portrait be added to the article? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
To the article yes, to the nomination no, if you have one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The image is already in Fair Use on the David Webster (opera manager) article, so it should be ok as Fair Use on this article - why it hasn't been added is unclear. I notice that there is no link back to this article from the David Webster article, and that neither article, not even this one which is actually about the painting, even once give the painting's official title.86.56.21.175 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: This might be the wrong place to say this, but the title of the article should be changed to "Portrait of David Webster". The standard way of naming articles about paintings is to just title them with the name of the painting. In the David Hockney template at the bottom of the article, the title has actually been piped to "Portrait of David Webster", so you know that is what the article should be called, so why not just call it that? 86.56.34.181 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I should have spotted that above. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The official title, as given by Christies is "Portrait of Sir David Webster", so that's what the article should be called, and it should be linked in the Hockney template under that name. https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/david-hockney-b-1937-portrait-of-sir-6285715-details.aspx 94.139.29.156 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I've moved it to its Christie's title...although Hockney signed it 'Sir David Webster with tulips'! There's a magnificent accompanying essay on Christie's which I shall expand the article from. Creating this article led me to start Nicholas Wilder, and I have two more Hockney articles in the pipeline! No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I will also add that as the auction at Christies is on 22 October (in 9 days time), wouldn't it be better to wait until after that, because this article and the hook will be out of date once the work has been sold and the sale price is known.94.139.29.156 (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
If we did wait, we could have ".. that the Royal Opera House, London said it had no alternative but to sell a painting by David Hockney for £XM to survive? Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, something like that, but as it is the auction that determines the sale price, rather than the ROH deciding what the price will be, I wouldn't word it quite like that. Other things of hooky interest might result from the auction - it might not reach the reserve price or if the buyer's identity is made public, it might be someone interesting, etc. Because of Covid, auctions aren't being held in crowded rooms as they usually are, and the way the auction is held could give rise to interesting hooks e.g." ... a painting by David Hockney, sold to keep the Royal Opera House solvent during the Corona crisis, was auctioned before an [almost] empty room." 94.139.4.117 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I like the last idea! The ROH didn't specify a price. Now what about the article title? The painter should not be in it. We could change that now. For the hook, we can just wait for the reports about the auction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I adjusted to Portrait of Sir David Webster in the hooks, - Mandarax, could you do your magic for the rest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sold for £12.8 million. No mention of purchaser, naturally. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Sold for £12.8 million and only 8 bidders in the room - someone could perhaps use that info in a hook see https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/christie-s-hockney-sale-roh . Christies obviously wouldn't name the buyer, but they might "out" themselves. I note that the title still hasn't been corrected in the Hockney template.94.139.7.255 (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 5[edit]

Act II: The Patents of Nobility (The Turn)

Jay Electronica
Jay Electronica
  • Reviewed: To be done

Created by Nice4What (talk). Self-nominated at 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: Red XN - Pending
Overall: Symbol question.svg Article's age and length check out, hook is interesting and has an adequate amount of sources to back it up, and image doesn't raise any concerns, so once the pending QPQ is taken care of, I'd be happy to give this the clear. Course, it bears mentioning that this is my first DYK review, so a second opinion would be appreciated. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Giving a second opinion as requested: all stuff appears to check out apart from the still-required QPQ. The only issue I found in the article was the lede wording: should it not be "It was released on" rather than "It released on"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ulung Sitepu

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 07:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article created today, new enough, long enough, hook is interesting, QPQ done. No image used. Please note this is my first time reviewing a DYK so a second opinion is requested. Best, 19jshi (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Giving a second opinion here. The article feels incomplete as there is no information given about his early life or about his life after his sentence was commuted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Giving this an appropriate tick. On the other hand, no close paraphrasing was found. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: There isn't. There's a video on Youtube that shows him celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary in 1992 in Karo, his place of origin. Unlike other governors in the list of governors of North Sumatra, this guy is just lacking information. There's this book which shows his birthdate, but then again, I'm not quite sure.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
In that case the article may still need to be copyedited and the DoB be added to the article (assuming the book is reliable). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Well, my main concern about the book is that the book is a primary source, it's a directory of books from a library in USA. And for the copyediting part, what is the main problem? Is it grammar or spelling or something else? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
For starters, the article sections could probably be renamed, "As the X" sounds weird as an example. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Yes check.svg Done Section header fixed. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
As for the DoB and the book you mentioned, it depends on what context it's mentioned in in the book. If you can't find a better source, maybe it could be left out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Not sure Do you mean keeping the DoB, or leaving it empty?
Ideally the DOB (and DOD if applicable) should be mentioned in the article if it can be verified. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Yes check.svg Done DoB added.
In light of the recent article I made, I proposed a new double hook.
ALT1: ... that Ulung Sitepu was inaugurated as the Governor of North Sumatra although he lost the election for the office?
Pinging @19jshi and Narutolovehinata5: as reviewer. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 04:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 6[edit]

Houkje Gerrits Bouma

Bouma (right) skating with ‘obscene’ bare arms
Bouma (right) skating with ‘obscene’ bare arms
  • ... that after Houkje Gerrits Bouma won one of the earliest women's speed skating competitions in 1809, women's speed races were not held because skating with bare arms was seen as obscene? Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/SK-A-5020 “ Baur schilderde de finalisten met hun blote armen, een afgeworpen mantel op het ijs. De weinig verhullende kleding zorgde voor veel ophef en daarom was het voorlopig de laatste vrouwenwedstrijd.“ (in Dutch)
    • ALT1:... that ...?

Created and moved from Draft space to main space by SportsOlympic (talk). Self-nominated at 17:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough at 1,801 characters by my count. I'll AGF on the hook reference since I can't read Dutch-language sources, but a few problems prevent me from being able to approve the page for DYK at the moment. First, the article doesn't really support the hook fact. It says the bare arms "caused a commotion", but that just means it received attention. This doesn't back the claim that the act was thought to be obscene. Second, the last sentence is unsourced; a reference should be added to cover this part. Third, two of the four references include unreliable links. Ref 3 includes a Facebook summary, which as a Facebook page is not a reliable source. Print books are reliable sources, so I see no need to even include that link. Ref 4 is to WikiTree, which isn't reliable because it is user-edited like Wikipedia. The sourcing will have to be improved before this gets a check mark. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
    • CommentThanks! All have been solved. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks for fixing those issues, but before this gets a tick mark, the reference formatting should probably be cleaned up. None of the web links has an access date, and the book in ref 4 needs a page number for verifiability. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 8[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

William H. Robbins

  • ... that William H. Robbins was a NASA engineer and project manager who worked on the NERVA nuclear rocket engine, NASA wind turbines, communication satellites, and the Shuttle-Centaur program? Source: "He was a Scientist-Project Manager who has a distinguished 38 year career at NASA while working on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Rocket engines, Wind Power, Communication Satellites, and the Shuttle/Centaur Program " ([29])
    • ALT1: ... that NASA engineer William H. Robbins worked on what was the world's largest windmill when it was dedicated in 1979? Source: "He worked early domestic Wind Power projects during the early eighties installing a 2 MW Wind Turbine in North Carolina " ([30]), "On July 11, 1979, the town of Boone celebrated the dedication of what was then hailed as the world’s largest windmill. The windmill, perched atop Howard’s Knob, had been installed as part of a program by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy to develop wind power as a renewable energy source in response to the country's dependence on petroleum during the 1970s OPEC oil embargo and resulting gasoline shortages." ([31])
    • ALT2:... that NASA engineer William H. Robbins was in charge of a project that won an Emmy Award? Source: You can see him with the Emmy on page 218 of [32] I didn't nominate this hook in the first place because his obit says he won the Emmy in 1985, but the NASA sources confirm that it was in 1987.
Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC).
  • Symbol question.svg Article is new (9 Oct), long enough (3686 characters), and within policy (referenced, no copyvios, etc). The article image is fair use, so can't be used here. The main issue is that the hook reads like a list, it would be better to pick one (or several connected) projects that he worked on, and focus on that. @Hawkeye7: could you propose an ALT please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The hook, even if pared down to a single accomplishment, is also very, very dull. A hook should "catch" the attention of readers not familiar with the subject, not simply state facts. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I've supplied a couple of ALT hooks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @Hawkeye7: Getting there. On ALT1, it would be better to specify the year. On ALT2, it says in the article that he received the award on behalf of NASA, and it's not clear that he received it for a project he was in charge of. Also, perhaps @Animalparty: is more awake now? ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
      • In my opinion Alt 1 is the most interesting, but it seems a bit misleading to bury the basis of the hook among references: the article text states "wind turbine", not windmill. Either the hook or the article prose should be modified appropriately, perhaps place "windmill" in quotes, as a wind turbine is similar but not exactly the same as a windmill, though they may be called such colloquially. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Tweaked the wording it the article to make it clearer for ALT2, and the hook of ALT1 to add the year it was dedicated. Per Windmill: A windmill is a structure that converts wind power into rotational energy by means of vanes called sails or blades, specifically to mill grain (gristmills), but the term is also extended to windpumps, wind turbines and other applications. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
          • @Hawkeye7: I'm OK with ALT2 after your article changes. With ALT1, please propose changes as a new ALT rather than changing the existing one. I also think you could make the sentence much shorter now (something like 'worked on the world's largest windmill in 1979'). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 11[edit]

Herr, wir bringen in Brot und Wein

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I have one problem with the third paragraph of the History section, where it says that in the Eucharist the bread stands for a necessity for survival and the wine for enjoyment. Forgive me; I am only familiar with the King James bible which says something different. I think that other readers may be puzzled too. Please could you clarify further in the text about where this information comes from, e.g. perhaps you could add at the beginning of the para: "The German Catholic Church teaches that ...", or Dr Thomas Weisser has exegesised that ...", or "the song's text says that ..."? The hook is cited, partly online and partly offline (taken AGF). The hook has 192 characters, within the length limit. Storye book (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

List of National Sports Award recipients in Olympic sports, List of National Sports Award recipients in athletics, List of National Sports Award recipients in hockey, List of National Sports Award recipients in wrestling, List of National Sports Award recipients in boxing, List of National Sports Award recipients in shooting, List of National Sports Award recipients in badminton, List of National Sports Award recipients in non-Olympic sports, List of National Sports Award recipients in cricket, List of National Sports Award recipients in parasports

Created by Roller26 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Before we go any further with this, please may I request that the word, "Indian", is included in all of these article page names? This is an international site, and I'm guessing that if you don't include "Indian", anyone reading any of those pagenames will at first think that it refers to their own country. You would need to ask an administrator to move the pages to new titles for you. Storye book (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Storye book, request you to go through Talk:National Sports Awards#Requested move 12 October 2020 as I believe the discussion there is relevant for what you are proposing. I am curious as to how someone randomly comes across such pages. The term "National Sports Awards" is only used by India and Bangladesh. The first line of all these pages plus the infobox (numerous times) makes it pretty evident that the award is given by Indian government. I believe the only way readers can come across these pages (other than the DYK listing) is though other Indian sports awards or their templates linking to them, or by direct search in WP or Google. Roller26 (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Roller26. I had not seen the discussion. I have struck out my comment above, so that it does not distract the DYK discussion. Storye book (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tomasz Jędrowski

Created by Nigetastic (talk). Self-nominated at 12:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment. While it technically passes (date, size, copyvio, hook, etc.) please see Talk:Tomasz_Jędrowski#Notability. I am not sure if the subject is notable. We should discuss this first, putting this on hold. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • strong oppose - putting it at the Main Page of wikipedia is a shameless misuse of wikipedia for promotion of a book fresh out of print. By the way "technically" has turned DYK into a travesty. DYK was intended to be collection of interesting jewels, morsels of knowledge. An now we have collection of pointless factoids. I stopped looking at this section of Main Page long time ago. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Staszek Lem: Frankly, I don't mind promoting as a side-product, IF the topic is notable. Wikipedia should not be used only for promotion, but if it is a byproduct of creating an entry on a notable topic, where's the harm? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    Wikipedia notability and real-life notability are different animals. And this book is an artificial hype. Not to say that the article is of questionable notability even by Wikipedia standards. Staszek Lem (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know enough about the topic to give an opinion on the notability concerns, but I do note that the hook is more about the book than the bolded link (the author himself), which is fine and perfectly acceptable for hooks (we've had several similar hooks in the past before), but also suggests that other possible suggestions could also be proposed here in case that falls through. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The article was kept at the deletion discussion, and new sources were suggested for expanding the article. The birth date listed in the introduction does not appear to be cited anywhere in the article and needs to be addressed. Would the nominator be interested in citing the birth date and expanding the article with the new sources? Flibirigit (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Flibirigit: Hello, Flibirigit. It's nice to hear from you. The author's birth year and location were already in the first ref, but that's a Polish-language periodical. I've now updated that citation include both the original Polish statement and an English translation. For the additional material, I penned the third paragraph under "Career" ("Many regions of Poland declared themselves LGBT-free zones in 2019[7], and Polish president ...") to include several more facts and three citations during the AfD discussion. For a re-write of the hook focused more on the author and less on the book, how would this work: "...that Tomasz Jędrowski wrote his debut novel, Swimming in the Dark, a gay love story set in Communist Poland "to revive, to resuscitate, the queerness that had been silenced." Thanks for your comments and attention.Nigetastic (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will complete a more detailed review within 24 hours. Flibirigit (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. No rush. I thought the AfD process killed its opportunity to be in DYK, so thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs)


Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article moved to mainspace on October 11 and nominated within seven days. Prose is at least 1,500 characters and meets length requirement. Article appears to be neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues detected. Article is mostly sourced, but a direct quote in the third paragraph is missing a citation directly after the sentence. It is preferable that the birth year and location be cited in the main body of prose, rather than in an introduction or infobox. No photos are used in the article. QPQ is not required as the nominator has less than five credits. The proposed hook is reasonbly interesting, but I ran into difficulty in verifying the citation for it. The statement " is a gay love story set in the closing years of the Polish People's Republic" is only mentioned explicity in the introduction and should be repeated somewhere in the main prose. Also, some readers may not equate the wording "twilight of Communist Poland" to "closing years of the Polish People's Republic". I suggest making the wording more similar. Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph which supports the hook would need a citation directly at its end as per DYK rules on citing a hook. Overall the nomination is interesting and I am happy to see it passed the AFD process. Flibirigit (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Flibirigit: Thanks for your attention and comments. Could you say which direct quote is uncited? If it's "to revive, to resuscitate, the queerness..." that sentence AND the one following it both came from the VICE piece. Ref #10 supports the previous two sentences. It wasn't possible to include his three thoughts ("...there’s a lot of anxiety...," "...to revive, to resuscitate, the queerness...," and "...also an homage and celebration of Polish culture...") into one passage without it being a long, clumsy run-on sentence. If the solution is to cite the first sentence and then 'ibid' the second, I'd be glad to do that. Also happy to write his statement about his age into the intro. Please confirm that I've understood your citation concern correctly. Thanks.Nigetastic (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 13[edit]

Reception of war criminals

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Given the nature of the subject and the wording of the hook, this nomination probably needs a very close look and perhaps reviews by more than one editor. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I will quote sources here. Note, all the news sources are hard news, not opinion pieces:
Sources

Brammertz, who was interviewed during a visit to Serbia, warned that in some countries, convicted war criminals are considered heroes and glorified by politicians, and war crimes are still being denied, sending out negative signals to potential witnesses.
“We cannot change the political reality, we cannot change the fact that in this country [Serbia], as in others, there are politicians who celebrate war criminals, which is an insult to the victims of these crimes, but we hope that there are enough politicians in positions who will support this process,” he said.

— Serge Brammertz, chief prosecutor at the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, https://balkaninsight.com/2019/05/24/balkan-states-backsliding-on-war-crime-cases-hague-prosecutor-warns/

Politicians on all sides undermine judicial accountability for war crimes and support glorification of war criminals as heroes.

— Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-balkans-icty-legacy/u-n-war-crimes-tribunal-urges-balkan-leaders-to-carry-on-its-work-idUSKBN19F0J0

War criminals are still glorified across ex-Yugoslavia. ...
Unfortunately, political elites in other ex-Yugoslav states [besides Serbia] are just as quick to embrace their own war criminals. In September 2018, Defense Minister Damir Krsticevic greeted "General Mirko Norac" at an event marking an anniversary of a Croatian wartime operation, Medacki Dzep, to the cheers of those attending. Norac had been stripped of his rank after being sentenced for war crimes...
In Bosnia, supporters of suspected war criminal Atif Dudakovic took to the streets to protest his arrest in April this year. The popular general and 16 of his aides are charged with killing over 300 people, abuse of civilians and prisoners, and destroying dozens of Serb churches and religious buildings. Dudakovic has not yet been convicted, despite a video recording showing him ordering his soldiers to execute two prisoners "on the spot."...
In Kosovo, the state's parliament held a minute of silence to mark the death of convicted war criminal Haradin Bala in February this year.

— Deutsche Welle https://www.dw.com/en/hero-worship-and-villain-worship-in-the-balkans/a-46341120

The glorification of one's own crimes and the contempt for victims of others is a common denominator of sociopolitical existence in post-Yugoslavian societies.

— Branko Sekulić, Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2190&context=ree

Many Serbs consider Krajisnik and other Bosnian Serb wartime officials as heroes despite the U.N. war crimes convictions against them.

— AP https://apnews.com/article/netherlands-yugoslav-wars-the-hague-war-crimes-virus-outbreak-9d39e147fe9d6cfcb6894f6f73510357

There is no legal obstacle to war criminals holding public office in Kosovo after they serve their sentences, and senior officials have repeatedly given them jobs, attended ceremonies in their honour and praised them as role models.

— Balkan Insight https://balkaninsight.com/2020/10/12/a-hero-returns-how-freed-war-criminals-are-glorified-in-kosovo/

Despite mounting criticism, Croatian President Zoran Milanovic has presented an award to a Bosnian Croat war crimes suspect, decorating a wartime Croat police unit for their “contribution to the liberation of Croatia”.

— Al Jazeera https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/8/5/croatian-president-presents-award-to-war-crimes-suspect

The disheartening outcome of the legal proceedings [of the ICTY] seems to have enabled the rise of hate speech,, genocide denial, the glorification of convicted war criminals,, and the suppression of memorials for the victims in Republika Srpska... In addition to the explicit denial of the Srebrenica genocide, there is an ongoing glorification of convicted war criminals, through memorials, commemorative plaques, and the dedication of buildings.

— David Pettigrew, Mandate Interrupted: The Problematic Legacy of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 19 Wash. U. GLOBAL Stud. L. REV. 381 (2020). https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wasglo19&div=20&id=&page=

the glorification of ICTY indictees makes it all the more difficult for Serbian citizens to honestly assess the crimes for which these individuals stand accused, let alone their state’s complicity therein.

— Spoerri, M. (2011). Justice Imposed: How Policies of Conditionality Effect Transitional Justice in the Former Yugoslavia. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(10), 1827–1851. doi:10.1080/09668136.2011.618682

Additionally, the trials were used by Serbian politicians to glorify war criminals...

— Stephanie C. Edwards, Healing and Peacebuilding after War: Transforming Trauma in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Routledge 2020 https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8M3nDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT87&dq=glorification+war+crimes+Yugoslavia&ots=rQ_PksK-0u&sig=bfeqKasDt3zRfsVC1OEJU5x7tDQ#v=onepage&q=glorification%20war%20crimes%20Yugoslavia&f=false

In Republic Srpksa and Serbia today, popular culture canonizes Karadžic. Children sign rhymes that glorify the war criminal, and the Serbian Orthodox Church considers sanctifying him.

— Doubt, K. (2007). Scapegoating and the Simulation of Mechanical Solidarity in Former Yugoslavia: “Ethnic Cleansing” and the Serbian Orthodox Church. Humanity & Society, 31(1), 65–82. doi:10.1177/016059760703100105

In Croatia, the real obstacle is the absurd conviction, nursed for nearly two decades, that the Croatian army cannot be guilty of war crimes because it was defending the nation. This has had a very important consequence: that war criminals are regarded as war heroes.

— Slavenka Drakulić, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=147622
  • (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think with such a controversial hook, either sourcing needs to be given for all current subdivisions of the former Yugoslavia, or the hook needs to be more specific and less expansive. Does this happen in Slovenia, Macedonia, and/or Montenegro? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset: Thanks for your comment. Here is a source for Macedonia[33] (elected to Parliament and called a hero). I can't find any for Slovenia or Montengro, probably because ethnic Slovenes and Montenegrins did not commit as many war crimes, which is why the hook doesn't say "all countries in the former Yugoslavia". It would be possible to focus on the worst offenders, Republika Srpska and Serbia, but I didn't want to be partisan since this also happens in most other ex-Yugoslav countries.
  • An alternative would be a hook that doesn't focus on Yugoslavia. But I thought it would be considered an easter egg: (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Tomb of Talaat Pasha in the cemetery of Monument of Liberty, Istanbul
Tomb of Talaat Pasha in the cemetery of Monument of Liberty, Istanbul


QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg For DYK rules alone, this covers all the bases. I have looked through most of the sources, and although some might be easily and better replaced with more solidly authoritative sources, I am not going to object to them. However I do believe that this article has a major content problem, in that "Reception of war criminals" is a general title which ought to cover controversial examples from all time (as far as we can) and most countries, but the article deals with a very tiny sample, missing out many famous and obvious examples. The UK has been missed out completely, yet we can offer you Bombing of Dresden in World War II (in collaboration with the US and in conjunction with Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill), and British concentration camps (in conjunction with Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener#Memorials). The US can offer far more than Trump's pardonings; Mỹ Lai massacre (in conjunction with letting off Lyndon B. Johnson and everyone else except William Calley who got house arrest), for instance? No doubt there are many historical "heroes" with possible feet of clay? Or ancient baddies who maybe weren't so bad, but having lost a war they were slandered? Unlike many editors here, I don't believe in deleting articles unless they are ill-intentioned, mere pranks, illegal etc. I do believe in leaving weak articles (which I think this one is) so that they can in due course be improved. But your subject is so large that I think it would take a lot of work to bring the content up to a Start rating. However this is just my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 has suggested (above) that this nomination gets reviews from more than one editor, and I agree with that. Therefore I shall add a New Review link below in the hope that we get at least one more review here. Meanwhile, thank you very much for your efforts on this article, Buidhe. This subject is worth covering; it's just way more enormous than your article says it is. Storye book (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

    • It is correct that this is a general article. However, articles should not be required to meet the "broadness" criteria of GA to be eligible. I do believe that the article is start class according to the content assessment metric—"Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more."—and therefore acceptable for DYK. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Please could we have a second reviewer? I'm not ducking out as reviewer. I'm just supporting the above request that we have more than one reviewer. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 15[edit]

Sandister Tei

Sandister Tei
Sandister Tei
  • ... that Sandister Tei (pictured) was the first female Ghanan Wikipedian to attend Wikimania? Source: "Sandister Tei of Ghana was one such attendees and the first female Ghanaian representative ever at a Wikimania conference." ([34])
  • ... ALT1: that Sandister Tei (pictured) was named the Wikimedian of the Year for 2020? Source: ([35])
  • Reviewed: John F. Yardley
  • Comment: I'm no good at hooks. Hopefully somebody else can suggest a better one.

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk), Ritchie333 (talk), Enock4seth (talk), and TJMSmith (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 16:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC).


  • While the hooks are probably interesting to Wikipedia users and enthusiasts, aren't both hooks rather WP:NAVELy? Maybe something could also be said about her non-Wikimedian career? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - ?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Just three issues: (1) Earwig found one sentence about Tei's university studies here which mirrors a sentence in the article. However the sentence appeared first in the WP article, therefore the yen.com source has copied that phrase from WP. Other independent material appears on that yen.com page, though, so I believe that for the other material it is valid to use the source as a citation in the article. As the article was developed, WP and yen.com were reading each other. However, to keep everything clearly aboveboard, I suggest that the sentence in the WP article ("Tei is an alumna of the University of Ghana, where she studied geography, and of Cardiff University where she undertook an MA in international journalism on a Tullow Group scholarship.") is rephrased now. (2) I do not understand the phrase, "promoting an increase in coverage on African topics instead Wikimedia projects". Do you mean "coverage of" and "instead of"? But does that mean ditching Wikimedia projects? I'm guessing that the intention is probably fine, but the awkward language is concealing that intention. (3) About the hook and the comment about being navelly: it would be great to adjust one of the hooks to include the fact that she is a Citifilm journalist, and/or that she has been a journalist with Al Jazeera's parent company. If these three issues can be resolved, then this will be a good one for DYK in my opinion. Storye book (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: I have fixed the first two issues, the former by copyediting it, the latter by looking at the source and concluding the prose meant to say "promoting an increase in coverage on African topics on Wikimedia projects". I'll have a think about the hook, I just hoped somebody else would have turned up to the nomination now and suggested one, given the attention Wikimedians of the Year tend to get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for resolving issues (1) and (2). I have amended the review accordingly. I look forward to seeing the new hook. Storye book (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Northern Cypriot presidential election

5x expanded by GGT (talk). Self-nominated at 23:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg All is well, except for two points which are one point which is easily resolved. (1) The first chart is sourced, but the Gezici links in that chart should be presented as citations, not direct external links (the second chart and the main text are fine). (2) The QPQ is pending. Thank you for a fascinating, thorough and well-balanced article. Storye book (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll hopefully get these done over the weekend and will ping you once they're done. --GGT (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the QPQ. Just the Geziki reference to be formatted now. Storye book (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That's also done! --GGT (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It's good to go now. The references still need to be formatted/Wikified, but they link properly, and as far as I'm aware that does not affect DYK. If you would like to format your references, you can do that by using the "cite" facility at the top of the edit box. Storye book (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg@GGT: Please format the bare URLs per Rule D3 so we can promote this. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 16[edit]

Holy Cross Crusaders women's ice hockey

Converted from a redirect by PMCH2 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg The hook citation is not available to me because I'm outside the US, so I take it AGF. I believe that this is the creator's first nomination, so there is no need for a QPQ. Just two issues: (1) Three paragraphs in the History section begin with a lower-case letter: "in ...". (2) Sources: (a) Two paragraphs in the History section have no citation at the end. (b) The Season by season results chart has the citation all on its own at the end (difficult to find). Could it be moved to just above the chart, with the word, "source"? (c) The Coaches section chart has no source. (The Awards and honors section, and the Holy Cross section are not fully sourced, but I guess that can wait until you can find sources later). And here is a story for you. I found out this week that my 3rd cousin, Hal Sullivan, an actor on CBC Radio Windsor (Canada) died in 2017. He was also an ice hockey goalie for much of his life. I met him once in the 90s, and he was a lovely guy, who told me a lot about ice hockey. So I'm doing this review in his memory. Let's make this a good one. Storye book (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for resolving issue (1). The sourcing issue remains. Storye book (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hideaway (U.S. Senate)

A hideaway in the United States Capitol
A hideaway in the United States Capitol

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Chetsford: Article new enough, long enough, sourced, neutral and plagiarism free. The image is free, used in article and clear. Hook is interesting but next time please attach the hook here rather than making the reviewer search it in the article. QPQ not done. Corachow (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Hideaway (U.S. Senate)

Pinging nominator Chetsford. Need feedback from the community here.

First of all, I have concerns that the tone of the article is more tabloid than encyclopedic. We have some BLP issues in that article. What specifically jumped out at me was, "Senator Bob Packwood, meanwhile, is alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman in his hideaway" I don't even see Packwood's name in the source: 1 I went to Bob Packwood that claims, "a Washington Post story detailed claims of sexual abuse and assault from ten women", but the Washington Post source says, "unwanted sexual advances as reported by 10 women, mainly former staff members and lobbyists."2 There's an ocean of difference between "unwanted sexual advances" and "sexual abuse and assault"

Just removed from the article by another editor was an external link "An image of Joe Biden in his hideaway", which was nothing more than Biden sitting in a chair in front of a table, with no one else visible.

Feedback, anyone? — Maile (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it needs some attention and, being both political and non-encyclopedic in tone, is not fit for DYK at present. Kingsif (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Both the article and the hook are written as though the US Senate is all male. There are currently 26 US Senators who are women. Also Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has a private extra office space, as do some others in the House. Not that much difference from private corporate America, where management gets offices, but everybody else has a cubicle. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
"I don't even see Packwood's name in the source" -- From the source [37] (which is bifurcated between two pages): Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Packwood, R-Ore., resigns to avoid expulsion after after more than two dozen women accuse him of sexual assault. One incident allegedly took place in his hideaway.
"Both the article and the hook are written as though the US Senate is all male. There are currently 26 US Senators who are women. " No, it is not written "as though the US Senate is all male". It tells the history of hideaways from 1800 to 2020, during which period there have been 57 female and 1,382 male senators. That is a sad reality of history but not something it is within the scope of my ability to control. I have included, to the greatest degree possible, references to females using hideaways. However, I am unable to create content where content - due to historic political paternalism - simply doesn't exist. If there are sources I have missed, however, that tell more of the story of females using hideaways, please feel free to add them to the article or, send them to me and I'll be happy to do so.
Let me know if you have any other concerns. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
being both political and non-encyclopedic in tone, is not fit for DYK at present" While that may be your opinion, we have no such policy. Recent DYKs on political topics include: Hans Ustrud, Huey Long, 1860 Londonderry City by-election, National Council of the Judiciary, Group of Personal Friends, Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush, etc. etc. If your concern is that this history and architecture article involves current politics, you are mistaken. Seven politicians are mentioned by name in the article, of whom, four are dead and three are retired. Chetsford (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Chetsford I don't have a problem with ALT-1. For whoever reviews this, the source for that is Page 21, section What exactly is “the office?” of the Congressional Intern Handbook 1 I do think that because this is about the hideaways for both the House and the Senate, you should move the page. Perhaps to "Hideaway offices (U.S. Congress)" or something similar. I'll leave it up to anyone who reviews this, as to whether or not the article itself is a tad click bait-ish with its emphasis on sexual liaisons. It's not like other human beings don't do the same thing on the sly, when the opportunity presents itself. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
While it's true that WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, I'm not sure why that's relevant as to whether we acknowledge the use of hideaways in this manner. I don't believe that WP's job is to present a burnished view of the U.S. Senate as a solemn institution of Spartan morality but to present it in the way reliable sources describe it, even if that may not be entirely celebratory. To the question of renaming, since only 5 of the 435 members of the House have hideaways while 100 of the 100 members of the Senate do, and the hideaway is commonly associated with the Senate, I think the current set-up of simply acknowledging the presence of House hideaways within the article is fine. Chetsford (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 18[edit]

2b2t

2b2t's destroyed spawn-in area
2b2t's destroyed spawn-in area
  • Comment: GA review. The alt hooks are a WP:SELFSOURCE from 2b2t's official web presence, the relevant quote is 2builders2tools is a minecraft server with the goal to never reset the world in a free for all no rules pvp environment, with little modification to the vanilla survival gamemode. The world is nine years and seven months old, with a size of 8376 GBs and over 513,255 players visiting at least once (see GA review). The main hook is from Kotaku, and the quote is pretty much just the title of the article. I would prefer ALT2 the most.

Improved to Good Article status by Melofors (talk) and Leijurv (talk). Nominated by Leijurv (talk) at 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

Living instrument doctrine

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC).


Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg This article was new enough when nominated, is easily long enough (~5,800 chars), and has no other eligibility problems that I can see. The QPQ review looks good. I see no signs of plagiarism from online sources; the hits on the Earwig tool are all from direct quotations that are appropriately attributed in the article. As a note, "differential treatment" currently redirects to "discrimination", which is wikilinked later in the same sentence; perhaps you're anticipating a future split? If not, the first link can probably be cut. As a suggestion not related to this review, it seems to me that this article should probably link to Living document (and should probably form the basis for a new section in that article!). The sourcing is thorough and of high quality. All the proposed hooks are supported by citations in the article; I find ALT0 the most punchy and efficient.

I'm a bit concerned about neutrality in the "Reception" section: the article as it now stands has five out of six sentences in this section expressing support for the "living document" approach, and the one sentence that documents opposition is immediately followed by a "However," seeming to indicate that it is rebutted by the next sentence. I have a hunch that there are many, many voices out there in opposition to this approach to jurisprudence (because, in my native jurisdiction, this question is extremely controversial). Surely a bit more space can and probably should be given to the dissenting voices? Other than that, everything looks good. Well done! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 19[edit]

Minbar of the Ibrahimi Mosque

  • ... that the minbar (mosque pulpit) of the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron was originally made for a Fatimid shrine in Ascalon? Source 1: "Haram al-Ibrahimi". Discover Islamic Art, Museum With No Frontiers: "The wooden minbar which stands today to the right of the mihrab, dates to the Fatimid period and was commissioned by Badr al-Din Jamali in AH 484 / AD 1092. It was brought to the Haram by Salah al-Din from Ashqelon (which lies roughly 50 km south of Jaffa)." Source 2: Bloom, Jonathan (1998). The Minbar from the Kutubiyya Mosque. p. 28 (endnote #11: "The minbar ordered by the Fatimid vizier Badr al-Jamali for the shrine of Husayn at Ashquelon (1091-92; later transferred to the Haram al-Khalil mosque, Hebron) is the earliest extant example."
  • Reviewed: Guru Ram Rai Darbar Sahib (but I did this a while ago; this is now the first time I believe I actually qualify for the QPQ requirement, with 4 previous DYK nominations)
  • Comment: There are a few technical terms here like "minbar" and "Fatimid" that might be especially unfamiliar to general readers; I'm happy to suggest some minor simplifications depending on what priorities are, or hear other feedback. (E.g. maybe "Shia" instead of "Fatimid"; it's more vague or less precise but still accurate and more likely to be familiar.) Other minor note: I've put "Ascalon" as it seems to be a standard English spelling used in a lot of history books, but "Ashkelon" is the standard Israeli transliteration nowadays, so I'd endorse either one.

Created by R Prazeres (talk). Self-nominated at 23:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC).

Historical policy of the Law and Justice party

  • ... that the historical policy of the Polish ruling party has been described as "a pumped-up martyr complex focused on conspiracy theories"? Source: "Poland has always been invested in the idea that its role and suffering in world history has been underestimated, and PiS’s version of that history — a pumped-up martyr complex focused on conspiracy theories — has found an audience." https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/8066/curating-a-nation-controversy-gdansk-ww2-museum
    • ALT1:... that the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom, in which hundreds of Jews were murdered by Poles, is viewed by the Polish ruling party as an attack on Polishness and Polish identity? Source: "According to the politicians, historians, and journalists representing PiS’s ideological position, Jedwabne and other events that cast a negative light on Polish national identity must be revisited and retold for both Poles and the West. In their eyes, Jedwabne is a key sign of ‘all the lies voiced against the Polish nation,’ and is understood as the ‘central attack’ on Polishness, Polish values and traditions, and Polish identity (understood in an ethnic sense)" 10.1080/23256249.2017.1376793

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 00:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Not yet. Needs work. At the moment it looks like WP:SYNTH. From the article it is unclear that the "historical policy" does officially exist (it does), rather than a collection of factoids that demonstrate a biased presentation of country's history, not uncommon in many countries. For example I would love to see an article about revisionism, often really idiotic, of the History of Ukraine since 2010s. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It could use improvement but it is a valid topic and meets DYK requirements. Żuk's, Hackmann's, and Michlic's articles, published in academic journals, unambiguously state that the historical policy exists. Please feel free to expand or improve the article; I don't own it. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Żuk's unambiguously state that the historical policy exists --The article also says "Polish Law and Justice party has developed a "historical policy". -- If it exists, the article must show how it is stated by the Party as a party policy, otherwise this is dismissible as an opinionated cherry-picked bullshit by the liberals and enemies of the Polish state. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Zuk quotes from the PiS party programs, for instance:

        The lack of any coherent “textbook” policy prevents the formation of a common consciousness of students and, at the same time, leads to the transmission of scandalous content, for example, communist crimes and the scale of German crimes in World War II are relativized. These measures use education to deconstruct our identity. […] The attack on tradition and the associated national consciousness is ostentatious in the cultural sphere. The preference for creativity that is detrimental to Polish values is clear. Leftist periodicals are supported; various types of state-funded cultural transmission attack patriotism and national values.

        Hackmann states:

        Since 2015, the right-wing Polish government has attempted to closely control those institutions that are regarded as crucial for shaping the national remembrance in order to implement a mnemonic policy with the aim of promoting patriotism and defending a positive image of the ethno-linguistically defined Polish nation abroad.

        (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg My review: date, size, refs, are good. Notability and neutrality - likely ok, but this is a touchy topic and I am not sure if the ALT1 about Jedwabne is neutral. Anyway, a techical issue - this needs to have lead cut to size (I don't suggest removing content, just moving it to the article's main body). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Jedwabne Pogrom... is viewed as an attack on Polishness" -- the author really has problems with logic. I hate editing political articles, but I have to note that the colleague seems to raise his struggle with Polish neoconservatism in Wikipedia to nonencyclopedic levels. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The author is stating that the conclusion that Poles were responsible for Jedwabne is an attack on Polishness, at least according to PiS. These historical facts are inconvenient, hence the claim (not supported by the available evidence) that Poles were not responsible... (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I know well what was and is with Jedwabne. I am saying that logic in your writing sucks, and you still do not see this. Please somebody else explain them or somebody explain me how a pogrom may be seen as an attack on Polishness. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am afraid the article is not stable. Both me and Staszek raised neutrality concerns, that Buidhe has promptly reverted: [40], [41]. There is ongoing discussion on talk. Setting aside a quickly decline AfD by a user blocked as sock, I am increasingly convinced this likely fails the stability and neutrality criteria for the main page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • The neutrality concerns were all about one sentence, which I supported with a quote on talk page. I am always ready to consider if another wording may be best, but it is not appropriate to tag an entire article for neutrality based on one sentence. Also, Piotrus used failed verification tags without actually trying to verify the content in the cited source. Since the article was just created it has undergone edits in the last few days but not beyond what is expected for a dyk article. (t · c) buidhe 16:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg The article seems to be based on politically engaged polemics that are blatantly false in certain parts. For example the statement: According to this narrative, Poles were exclusively victims and heroes during World War II and the Communist era is absurd as PiS is waging at least two campaigns to shame and deprive of memory any Pole who in their view "collaborated with Communism" [42]Kiszczak i Jaruzelski to byli zdrajcy narodu:Kiszczack and Jaruzelski were traitors to the nation or wszyscy komunistyczni kolaboranci, którzy uczestniczyli w prześladowaniach Polaków i sprawowali władzę w imieniu Moskwy, powinni być przeniesieni z cmentarzy, które dzisiaj są narodowymi nekropoliami all communist collaborators who took part in repressions against Poles and waged power in the name of Moscow should be removed from cemeteries that are today national necropolises. So yeah, the claim that PiS sees Poles only as heroes is easily verified as false.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is an accurate representation. As the statement you quote indicates, any Poles who do not behave the way they are supposed to are not "real Poles". This division has been noticed in research:

Epithets which divided Poles in two groups and indicated on bad intentions of political opponents became a part of newspeak of Polish rightist spectrum. Here it is possible to identify a division into “real Poles” with reference to followers of “right”and “false” Poles with reference to the rest as well as [insults such as] “lemmings” with reference to voters of PO and left wing,“communists”, “thieves” etc. [and suggesting that not only Donald Tusk but entire population groups such as Kashubians or Silesians are German]

— Modrzejewsk, Arkadiusz (2017). "Catholic and Nationalist Populism in the Current Poland". Perspective politice. Scoala Nationala de Studii Politice si Administrative. ISSN 1841-6098.
  • Hence why, as Sadurski put it, "the [2018] law clearly resonates with a nationalistic government rhetoric, under which Polish history is comprised exclusively of heroic acts and undeserved victimhood, and never of criminal deeds." If they're responsible for "criminal deeds" one can conclude that they are not really a Pole but a communist puppet, etc. Hackmann notes that in the Ulma museum, "the policeman who presumably gave the hint to the hidden Jews, is questioned to be a Pole, because he was Greek Catholic".
  • You state that these peer reviewed papers are all "politically engaged polemics" but they are actually research papers published in respected journals such as Journal of Genocide Research and Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust. I think that the editorial boards of these journals should count for more than one wikieditor's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
If they're responsible for "criminal deeds" one can conclude that they are not really a Pole but a communist puppet Please read on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are wandering of to creating your own personal theories. Wikipedia is not the place for this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The sentence you are complaining about has been rewritten. Are there any further complaints based on concrete issues, or is this a case of IDONTLIKEIT? (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is fine. All I see is people who ignore reliable sources, and want to push content from PiS's website onto Wikipedia. I opened a RfC to settle it: Talk:Historical policy of the Law and Justice party#Request for comment: PiS program from its website as first section. Kasha lover (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

An obvious sockpuppet. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Snailfish

  • ... that snailfish can be found at more different ocean depths than any other family of fish?

Created by MitchG265 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Newly created article. Plenty long enough, well written, and no POV issues. However, there are several paragraphs that are uncited or lack citations for some information; this needs to be fixed before the article is ready for DYK. Hook is good and cited to a reliable source. QPQ not needed as this is the nominator's first DYK. If the uncited information can be properly cited, this will be ready for DYK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 20[edit]

Gudrun Schröfel

Gudrun Schröfel receiving the award
Gudrun Schröfel receiving the award
  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment In the picture Schröfel was awarded the Lower Saxony State Prize. Grimes2 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Ok, I'll take this one on. New enough, long enough. First paragraph is uncited. Whilst it doesn't have any bearing on DYK, I wonder whether within that paragraph, should the German term "lied" be shown with its English translation given that it will confuse most readers until such time that they follow the link? The hook does not check out; she won the Lower Saxony State Prize in 2015; the article should use the English title as per the link target, rather than the German term. In addition, the hook should not imply that she was professor at the time of receiving the award as she had retired three years earlier. As all sources are in German, I don't think that Earwig's Copyvio Detector needs to even be bothered about copyvio issues. Schwede66 08:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry about my confusion of her many awards, unfamiliar with their English names.
    ALT1: ... that Gudrun Schröfel, who was the long-term choral conductor of the Mädchenchor Hannover and professor at the Musikhochschule Hannover, received the Lower Saxony State Prize in 2015 (pictured)?
    If you'd translate lied you'd have to say "art song in German", and to me it's like explaining what symphony or opera mean. That's what links are for, - helping those unfamiliar to more info without molesting those who know it already. The award was for her life's work, - but I tried. I didn't create the article on the award, - I would have used the German as the common name. Using the translation in the hook is for our "general readership". A German Land/Staat is so different from the normal or U.S. understanding of "state" that I'm afraid we loose precision when translating (in the article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Theridion grallator

Red front morph
Red front morph
  • ... that Theridion grallator can change color based on its diet? Gillespie, Rosemary G. (1989). "Diet-Induced Color Change in the Hawaiian Happy-Face Spider Theridion grallator, (Araneae, Theridiidae)". The Journal of Arachnology. 17 (2): 171–177. ISSN 0161-8202

5x expanded by Cjing99 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Starting Review --Kevmin § 04:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Cjing99: Article expansion new enough, but not quite long enough. The 19 Sept 2020 version is 2576 characters, so the current version should be at least 12,880 characters to qualify as a 5x expansion, but by my count it is at 12052 currently. Also the article is a little heading heavy at the moment, the subheadings for the one sentence sections could be left off for now, and added if the sections get longer.--Kevmin § 20:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Misumena vatia

  • ... that Misumena vatia, the goldenrod crab spider, can change colors between white and yellow depending on the color of the flowers on which it lives? Source: [1]

5x expanded by Eanisman (talk). Self-nominated at 01:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ "The functional morphology of color changing in a spider: development of ommochrome pigment granules". Journal of Experimental Biology.
  • DYK Check says that the article hasn't been expanded 5x within the last 10 days. Article was at 6,676 bytes when you started improving it, and now is at 22,079. Needs to be 33,380. Can you lengthen it that much? DrThneed (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the article past 33,380 and cleaned up the references section to the best of my ability. Let me know if I've missed anything or need to add anything else. Thanks!

Eanisman (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Eanisman great, I'll continue the review.DrThneed (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. The alternate hook sounds good to me! I'm also new to DYK so I'm not sure if I should go ahead and change the proposed hook to reflect your suggestions. I'll leave it as is for now. Eanisman (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article length and age fine after first review. Copyvio notes problems but that's with a site that repeats Wikipedia info. Eanisman You might consider changing the hook to make it clear that it is an individual spider that can change colour, not that individuals found on different plants are different colours? So I might suggest something like "...that an individual goldenrod crab spider, Misumenia vatia, can change color between white and yellow depending on the color of the flowers on which it lives?". Looks like nominator's first DYK nomination, so no QPQ required. I have marked this as requiring another editor to review not because it needs a lot of work but because I am a new DYK reviewer seeking a second opinion. I am specifically wanting to check that a) my suggested ALT hook is OK, b) how closely the wording of the hook should match the article text. The information about colour changing in the article is contained in two paragraphs with four sources. So the information is summarised into the hook accurately, as far as I can tell, but the hook itself does not appear in the same or similar form in the article. Is this normal? DrThneed (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 21[edit]

Christian Flor

Cover of Seelenparadis (Paradise of the Souls), 1660
Cover of Seelenparadis (Paradise of the Souls), 1660
  • ... that Christian Flor, described in a 1740 encyclopedia as a famous organist from Lüneburg, composed settings of Bible verses for collections (title page pictured), and one of the earliest Passion oratorios? Source: several
  • Reviewed: to come

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 20:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Poland–United Arab Emirates relations

Created by ZaDoraemonzu (talk) and John B123 (talk). Nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) at 10:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - hook fact needs to be cited inline no later than the end of the sentence that contains said fact.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Please address my copyvio concerns.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 07:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Living Books

  • Reviewed: To Be Completed (please commence the review in the meantime)
  • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination in a long time so please be a little patient. I am open to your suggestions and excited by the opportunity to see this article be approved.

5x expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Can we move the "Games in the series" bit down? Seems odd having it as the first thing in the prose (also, are these games, or books?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Moved the table down to the bottom of the page, changed title to 'Titles in the Series', and reworded first two columns to clearly differentiate source material vs Living Books programs.--Coin945 (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • long enough, expansion in time Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Copyvio brings up this, might need an investigation? The block quote in particular is too much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've now reviewed the probematic sources and reworded all appropriate sections. The copyvio ranking for the top two sources are still 59.9% and 43.2% but basically all of this is names of books and titles of relevant officials (e.g. "Alberto Vitale, head of Random House Publishing" which need to be copied verbatim). I hope this will suffice.--Coin945 (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
After a major edit I'm now up to 61.3% for the top source. Let me have another crack at this once I've had some sleep.--Coin945 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Upon investigation, I don't think I've really used too much from those top-listed sources in the copyvio ranking due to the reasons listed above. I'll do another pass soon, and would welcome your opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Issues with the hooks, these are more just facts about the subject, rather than a hook. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A hook involving The LA Times criticized Disney for contracting their games to independent studios, deeming the series a "mere imitation of Broderbund's Living Books format. might be good, something describing it as a "mere imitation" is quite hooky for a completely different series. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Writer, Julia Angwin, Chronicle Staff (1997-01-18). "Broderbund Regains Stake In Living Books". SFGATE. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
  2. ^ "Company History". wanderfulstorybooks.com. Retrieved 2020-10-21.
  3. ^ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-01-31-fi-30595-story.html

.

Chisapani Gadhi

  • ... that females are not allowed to go inside the Chisapani Gadhi, Nepal? Source: [44] "We were baffled as the caretaker informed us that women were barred from entry here"

Created by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough and long enough. AGFing on the various Nepali sources. I am bothered by the similarity between The fort, which is spread on four bighas of land, was constructed in 1801BS during the rule of the Sen king in Makwanpur. The fort was used for military, administrative, trade and immigration purposes after the annexation of Makwanpur to Nepal in 1819 BS. Historians said there was a court, a check post and an office of Badahakim, a post equivalent to the governor of the region, on the premises of the fort. in the source and The Chisapani Gadhi is an ancient fort in Bhimphedi that was built during the unification of Nepal around the Sen rule in Makwanpur.[1] After it was annexed to the Kingdom of Nepal, it was used for military, administrative, trade and immigration.[1] Some historians say that in the fort there was a "court, a check post and an office of Badahakim, a post equivalent to the governor of the region".[1] , even with the quote it comes off like close paraphrasing. The grammar is also a little off - "military, administrative, trade and immigration", " and she added that local resident created a rumour that she died." and "Gadhi was being renovation and conservation" are just examples. Why is the funding provided by the provincial government not included? I am not sure that #2 mentions the fort in the context given. The image is properly licenced but it appears to be located in a different fort than the article claims. QPQ is low-hanging fruit, but passable. Hook is interesting and sourced inline, but the article has too many issues for me to feel comfortable approving it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Some grammar fixes are still needed. Also, I've asked for a Nepali reader to check the sources at WT:DYK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nepali: "चिसापानी गढीको कारणले नै युद्ध गर्न आएका अङ्ग्रेजहरु यस क्षेत्रमा आउन नसकेर सिमभन्ज्याङतर्फ मोडिन बाध्य भएको इतिहास रहेको छ" Source
  • English: The Britsh came to attack the Chisapani Gadhi but they could not so they went to Sim Bhanjyang instead.
  • Nepali: "कर्नेल रणवीरसिंह थापा मुख्य कमान्डर । कोशी नदी पश्चिम र नारायणी नदी पूर्वको सेक्टर कमान्डर थिए । उनले सुमेश्वर गढी, उपरदाङ गढी, कविलास गढी, कान्द्राङ गढी, चिसापानी गढी, मकवानपुर किल्ला, ढुंगे गढी, डढुवा गढी, हरिहरपुर गढी, अम्वास गढी, हरिहरपुर किल्ला, सिन्धुली गढी, उदयपुर गढी, चौदण्डी गढी लगायत सेना तैनाथी गराए" Source
  • English: Ranabir Singh Thapa was in charge of the west and east of Narayani River. He deployed soldiers in .....(the source talks about others forts he had put forces in)........ Chisapani Gadhi.
  • Nepali: "चिसापानीमा बटुक भैरवको मन्दिर छ, जहाँ महिलालाई प्रवेश निषेध छ" Source
  • English: There is a temple where females are not allowed.
  • Nepali: "यस विषयमा बेलाबेला महिला अधिकारवादीले आवाज उठाई रहेका पनि छन्" Source
  • English: In the past, females have protested against the "no females allowed" rule.
  • Nepali: "मन्दिरमा प्रवेश गरे अनिष्ट हुने र ज्यान नै जान सक्ने मनोवैज्ञानिक त्रास फैलाइएको छ । तोप पड्काउँदाको आवाजले महिलाको गर्भ खेर गएकाले जान हुँदैन भन्ने मान्यता रहेको स्थानीयहरू बताउँछन्" source
  • English: If a female goes inside they will become unlucky or die. Some people say the when the big cannon was fired the noise that came from it caused some miscarriages.
  • Nepali: "२०६० मंसीरमा पहिलो पटक त्यहाँ पुगेकी हुँ। पत्रकारिता तालिमको सहभागी भएर स्थलगत भ्रमणमा गढी जाँदा महिलाले तोप हेर्न नहुने र मन्दिर पनि जान नहुने भनेर लेखिएको सूचना देखेपछि छक्क परें । साथीहरू र तालिमका प्रशिक्षकले नजानू भने पनि पसें । मेरो घर हेटौंडा भएकाले त्यो बाटो परेका वेला र त्यसपछि पनि पटक पटक मन्दिर पसेकी छु "। source
  • English: I went there in 2060 N.S.. I was surprised by the sign which read no females allowed. My friends told me not to go but I went anyway. I live in Hetuda so I have travelled this road many times and visited the temple.
  • Nepali: "मलाई आजसम्म कुनै अनिष्ट भएको छैन, तर चिसापानीतिर मेरो बारे ४/५ वर्षअघिसम्म अफवाह चलेको रहेछ । चिसापानी गढी नजिकैको होटलतिर ‘१५/१६ वर्षअघि पत्रकारको टोलीमा आएकी एउटी केटी मन्दिरभित्र पसेकी थिई, पछि मरिछ’ भन्दा रहेछन् । मान्छे मरेको कुरा पनि केही आधार नभई गर्दा रहेछन् भन्ने प्रमाण हो यो" source
  • English: I am not dead as of now. The people in Chisapani told others about my death (about four or five years ago). ......................
  • So what happened to the DYKAGF rule. Anyway, I translated the whole article for you. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but when close paraphrasing is involved then I look a bit more closely than DYKAGF would warrant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Notes:
    1. #3:
      • Article: "During the Anglo-Nepalese War, commander Ranabir Singh Thapa deployed many soldiers inside the fort."
        • Source: "Colonel Ranabir Singh Thapa [was] chief Commander. He was the sector commander between Koshi and Narayani rivers. He deployed his troops to Sumeshwar Gadhi, Upardang Gadhi, ..., Chisapani Gadhi, ..."
    2. #4:
      • Article: "But the forces did not directly face the East India Company. Thapa at the Makwanpur Gadhi stopped the British troops from getting into the fort subsequently they went to attack the Sim Bhanjyang, Nepal."
        • Source: "There is a history that the English who had come to fight could not come to this region because of Chisapani fort and were forced to divert toward Simbhanjyang." Note that, along with this one, the article cites another source that's not in Nepali for the same text.
      • Article: "The fort also contains a Bhariva Temple."
        • Source: "The Batuk Bhairava temple, which is also in this area, also has a long history."
    3. #6:
      • Article: "Females are not allowed to go inside the fort."
        • Source: "There is a Batuk Bhairava temple in Chisapani; women are prohibited from entering the temple."
    4. #7 (Note that this website lists a three member team[45]; they appear to be locals)
      • Article: "Females are not allowed to go inside the fort." " Many women have protested against this in the past."
        • Source: "...and women are prohibited from entering the fort." "Women rights activists have raised their voice on this subject from time to time."
    5. #8 (#9 is also the same source, so I'll cover both here)
      • Article: "There is a myth circulating that if a woman enters they might die or become unlucky. Some local residents say that the sound of the big cannon firing caused miscarriages. Journalist Durga Lamichhane went inside the fort and the temple many times; she reported that she did not have any miscarriages, and Lamichhane said that the local residents created a rumour that she had died."
        • Source: "Psychological fear has been spread that entering the temple could bring anishta, even death.(I can't think of a good translation for "anishta"; it's somewhere among "bad omen", "bad luck", "disaster", "tragedy"; google translate identifies the word as Bengali and translates it as "evil" among other things) But many women have entered there multiple times. According to locals, there is a belief that [women] should not go there because the sound of the cannon firing caused miscarriages in women." "Durga Lamichhane: I have been to Chisapani Gadhi and the Batuk Bhairava temple in its premises four times... I have never faced any anishta to this day, but, I found out that there were false rumours about me circulating around Chisapani until 4-5 years ago. In roadside restaurants near Chisapani they used to say, "15-16 years ago, a girl from a team of journalists had entered the temple, she died later.""
I hope this is enough. I would gladly assist with copyediting also, if that would be desirable. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. That said, Symbol redirect vote 4.svg as it looks like the source interpretation is a wee bit liberal - "Women rights activists have raised their voice on this subject from time to time" does not automatically equal "many" nor "protested against"; I've certainly seen feminists defending the burqa so I would not categorically assume that in such cases it's "protested against". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In context, it does mean "protested against" though it's an intellectual protest not a physical one ("spoken out against" may be better), but yes, "many women" should be "women rights activists". Another thing I noticed was the claim "she reported that she did not have any miscarriages"; I don't remember seeing that in the source. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 22[edit]

Jointness and integration in the Indian military

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 10:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

William E. Miller (soldier, born 1836)

Improved to Good Article status by Semmendinger (talk). Self-nominated at 01:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg GA status procured on 22 October, DYK nomination made on 26 October. Article meets required length (~7695 characters). Hook is sourced and cited in the sentence. No copyvios found. QPQ done. Hook is of great length and very interesting. DepressedPer (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Semmendinger, the phrase "saving Gettysburg" isn't used in the article. It probably shouldn't be in quotation marks in the hook. A reporter did say that he "won Gettysburg". Is that what was intended? In any case, Gettysburg needs to be disambiguated – are you saying that he saved the city, or won the battle? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, should be disambig to the Battle of Gettysburg. We can take away the quotes to keep the line. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've struck the original hook and made those changes as ALT0a. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 23[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 24[edit]

Union of Town and Country Proletariat

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 11:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 25[edit]

I Hate Running Backwards

Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

1907 Skowhegan textile strike

Created by Namiba (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough. The passage "an increase in wages, the dismissal of an overseer they accused of sexual harassment, the abolition of fines for workers, and workers’ representation on an arbitration committee" appears twice in the prose. In the second instance, it's not given as a direct quote and that's therefore a copy-violation; this needs fixing. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is otherwise happy. Namiba has 11 DYKs to their credit (according to DYK notices, or 24 DYKs according to their user page) and a QPQ is therefore required but missing as yet. Both hooks check out. I find the original hook (ALT0) more interesting. Schwede66 19:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the repeated text and added a bit of context regarding the politics of the IWW. As for how many DYK's I've contributed to, I think the correct number is actually 28, but I haven't written any since 2011 so it's impossible to recall.--User:Namiba 19:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I see. A new rule since then is that you have to review another DYK as part of nominating your own; that's what "QPQ" (quid pro quo) refers to. Schwede66 19:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Janice Harayda

Created by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. My only reservation is that being one of about 100 best book reviewers on Twitter in 2010 is somewhat underwhelming. Can you find a more interesting hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bryson Rash

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 20:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment. Hello there. I will be working on this review. This will be my first DYK review. If there is something that is missed procedurally, please let me know. Prelim review completed and notes below.
  • Checklist.

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Muboshgu, thanks for this nomination. Couple of quick questions. The first hook is cited, verified, and good to go. However, on the second hook, I am not able to verify the hook based on the WaPo obituary. The WaPo article says a) first televised speech from the White House. b) first television transmission from a mobile unit (in the National Mall). c) First coast to coast television transmission for / on ABC. So, the one that comes cloest to the alt hook is the first coast to coast transmission for / on ABC. Were you able to check any other sources to confirm if this coast to coast was in fact nationwide or was it just across a few stations on either coast. Pardon my being pedantic. Secondly, this WaPo article doesn't say anything about first nationwide radio broadcast. Please let me know if I am missing something. The other question I have is regarding the IOU on the QPQ - is there something that I need to do on that front? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Ktin, nothing for you to do. I'll do the QPQ today and doublecheck on the factuality of my proposed hook too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, QPQ is done... – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Drishti (film)

5x expanded by Shshshsh (talk). Self-nominated at 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg While at first glance the article appears to be of an appropriate length and sourcing, neither of the two hooks appear to be that appealing to non-Indian audiences. Could new hooks possibly be proposed here that would be more broadly interesting to a wider readerbase? Hooks based on the many review quotes could be a good start. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • user:Narutolovehinata5 - Hi there - I'm sorry but I can't think of other hooks, and I personally don't think that someone from India will necessarily like a hook on Indonesian cinema. The "appealing" argument is very relative and subjective. Shahid • Talk2me 09:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shshshsh: Some of the review quotes seem to be promising and have hook potential. For example, there's the quote from The Tribune saying that it is one of the "masterpieces of 1990", or the mentions of how it "brings up an issue that is universal" (presumably about marriage separation? it's not very clear in the article text), or even how it has been described as "a harsh look at monogamy". A hook about the reception it's received for its themes would likely have broad appeal, even to non-Indians, and right now I have reservations that either of the initially proposed hooks would be approved as-is, although an alternate wording of ALT1 mentioning that the film was found to be in poor shape could potentially work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. I'm not sure reviews are very good because hooks are about facts and not opinions but if you can think of something concrete, feel free to offer your suggestion. I sort of agree about ALT1, maybe "ALT1a: ... that the 1990 Hindi film Drishti was restored by the Film Heritage Foundation in 2018 for being 'in a very poor condition'"? Shahid • Talk2me 10:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
ALT2:... that the 1990 Hindi film Drishti, which follows the story of a married couple who divorce and later meet again, has been praised for its "harsh look at monogamy"?
How about this? Probably something else could be added there. I'm also not sure if the current version of ALT2 would work given that it's based on the plot section and thus requires a citation (which plot sections normally wouldn't need), but it was a way to give context to the "harsh look at monogamy" quote. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Very interesting - and actually, the source you use does provide exactly the plot element you mentioned in this hook. Shahid • Talk2me 13:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but that information will still need to be cited somewhere in the article. Since usually plot sections aren't sourced, maybe it could instead be mentioned and cited in the lede or in the Reception section? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 - cited in the lead. Shahid • Talk2me 09:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg @Narutolovehinata5: the article is not yet a 5x expansion. Before expansion began, on August 13 the character count was 1075. As of today it is 5128 characters. An additional 247 characters are needed. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg A 247 character expansion is not insurmountable so it's probably too soon to fail this nomination just yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I can expand it. Shahid • Talk2me 10:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. Shahid • Talk2me 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Character count is now 5677 characters, well above a 5x expansion. Review can continue. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to finish the review tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg A 5x expansion has now been accomplished, the article is well-cited, and the hook facts are cited inline and verified. Although a QPQ was done, the tool suggests that the nominator has only one prior DYK credit, please confirm if this is the case. Owing to broad interest concerns, ALT0 and ALT1 have been struck, leaving us with ALT1a and ALT2; I will leave the final choice to a different reviewer as I proposed ALT2. However, there is one issue with the article: Earwigs finds a positive with this Amazon link, and while I am not sure if the article copied from Amazon or vice-versa, to be on the safe side I would suggest rewriting the plot summary, though in such a way that the article remains a 5x expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs)
  • I don't know which tool counts one's number of DYKs. My latest DYK is Wahan Ke Log a month or so ago and, indeed, my last DYK before this one was many years ago (there were several of them actually about ten years ago) but the tool probably doesn't count so far back. You can see my userpage for a list of my old DYKs.
  • Both hooks look very good to me (although honestly the first one wasn't that bad either - Kishori Amonkar is regarded as a legendary classical singer in India, and I think it is an interesting fact that she had only one venture into film music, which is this one, but anyway).
  • Plot copyedited now. Shahid • Talk2me 10:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 26[edit]

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise


Improved to Good Article status by Iura Solntse (talk). Self-nominated at 03:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Air pollution in Turkey

  • Comment: I think I still have one free nomination left but if not please let me know so I can do a review

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - See below
  • Interesting: ????
  • Other problems: Red XN - Both hooks are kind of speculative. Could you write another one that focuses on concrete verifiable facts that are true today? Also, the source you quote does not support "that the right to clean air was recognised in the 6th century", and the link is misleading.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have something to cheer people up rather than something depressing like:
  • ALT2:... that 30,000 people die each year from air pollution in Turkey? Source: According to dust and sea-salt removed satellite-derived PM2.5, mortality ... of 36967 in Turkey .... estimated by all causes. ... 40583 in Turkey .... using ground PM2.5 observations for provinces with monitoring stations. [48]

(lowest estimate is 29 thousand in another source)

so how about:

  • ALT3:... that TOGG plan to drive away air pollution in Turkey?Source: Speaking about the environmentally friendly specification of the models, Karakas said: “(TOGG cars) are one-ninth of the legal (emissions) limit in Turkey, one-seventh of the legal limit in Europe and it is the cleanest in Europe." [49]

I know the cars are not yet in production but as the country has so much carmaking experience already and the factory is already being built I am sure they will be in a couple of years. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • ALT2 could work, but I don't think ALT3 does because readers are unlikely to know what TOGG is and "drive away air pollution" is too vague, not to mention not supported by the source you cited. Or even better: (t · c) buidhe 07:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh no - ALT4 is true but even more depressing. Can't we have something more cheerful? You are right that readers are unlikely to know TOGG, but perhaps that does not matter, and it might intrigue them. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 27[edit]

Newton Collins

  • ... that Newton Collins was enslaved, manumitted, re-enslaved, and emancipated before becoming a successful businessman and landowner? Source: "... a two-time slave who who became a successful businessman, landowner, and community patron" ([52])
    • ALT1:... that Newton Collins is the namesake of the first modern school in Central Texas to be named after a former slave? Source: "The campus is believed to be the first modern school in Central Texas named for a former slave." ([53])

Created by Bryanrutherford0 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg New, of sufficient length, no copyvio concerns, article is appropriately sourced. Hook facts are cited in the lead but without source. Facts seems to all be supported by source 1 so a citation to that in the lead would solve the issue. Otherwise my only comment is to say that "enslaved person" is frequently preferred to "slave" these days (as it points to enslavement as a state the person is placed in and not something that is central to their identity). For this reason the first hook is approved, not the ALT1. DrThneed (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Inwazja

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 00:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Gainsborough Studios (Manhattan)

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 02:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Awaiting QPQ and resolution of the "from us" problem; should be okay otherwise. I definitely prefer ALT0 – too much information in ALT1. Will watch this to complete later. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Thanks for the review. I have added a QPQ and reduced the overlap in phrasing. However, the site in question seems to be a junk/spam site for somewhere in India (which incidentally copied random text from the article), so I very highly suspect they copied from us. epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I've checked the QPQ. That site is probably a mirror of sorts – I had that happen to me a few months ago. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 28[edit]

Wahtye

  • ... that Netflix released a documentary on October 28, 2020 about the discovery of the tomb of Egyptian priest Wahtye?
    • ALT1:... that ... in 2018 Egyptian archaeologists identified the 4,000 year old tomb of the Egyptian priest Wahtye?

5x expanded by Dudu90 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Marianne Ignace

Ignace and her husband at their book launch in 2018
Ignace and her husband at their book launch in 2018
  • Reviewed: TBD

Created by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I was surprised and puzzled to see that she was born in Germany, but I see from the source that she was not an ethnic Native American, but was adopted into the community she studied. Perhaps you could mention that in the article. Just waiting for a QPQ to be done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Vicious Circle (painting)

  • ... that Jacek Malczewski saw artistic life as a vicious circle? Source: "It has been considered one of Malczewski's major works and is generally interpreted as an allegory of the role of an artist."

Created by PavKls (talk). Nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) at 22:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Multi-component gas analyzer system

  • ... that multi-component gas analyzer systems can allow for real-time forecasting of volcanic eruptions? Source: Aiuppa, Alessandro; Moretti, Roberto; Federico, Cinzia; Giudice, Gaetano; Gurrieri, Sergio; Liuzzo, Marco; Papale, Paolo; Shinohara, Hiroshi; Valenza, Mariano (2007). "Forecasting Etna eruptions by real-time observation of volcanic gas composition". Geology. 35 (12): 1115. Bibcode:2007Geo....35.1115A. doi:10.1130/G24149A.1
    • ALT1:... that multi-component gas analyzer systems can help scientists monitor real-time changes in volcanic gases, allowing for more rapid hazard mitigation? Source:de Moor, J.M.; Aiuppa, A.; Pacheco, J.; Avard, G.; Kern, C.; Liuzzo, M.; Martinez, M.; Giudice, G.; Fischer, T.P. (2016). "Short-period volcanic gas precursors to phreatic eruptions: Insights from Poás Volcano, Costa Rica". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 442: 218–227. Bibcode:2016E&PSL.442..218D. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.02.056. ISSN 0012-821X.

5x expanded by Brynnams (talk). Self-nominated at 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Grady Fuson

  • Reviewed: IOU

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 18:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Kukur Tihar

A dog with flower garlands on his neck
A dog with flower garlands on his neck
  • ... that today Nepali people worship dogs (pictured) to please Yama?
    • ALT1:... that today on the occasion of the festival of dogs (pictured) people from Nepal offer them various foods including meat, milk, eggs, and dog food?
  • Reviewed: Hidden Lake (Alaska)
  • Comment: Please save this for 14 November. If better ALT is available please share with me!

Created by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

Battle of the Saw

  • ... that a Carthaginian army trapped 40,000 rebels and starved them into cannibalism before attacking them and killing every man at the Battle of the Saw? Source: Hoyos, Dexter (2007). Truceless War: Carthage's Fight for Survival, 241 to 237 BC. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-90-474-2192-4. "40,000 rebels" pp. 198-200, 216; "starved them into cannibalism" p. 211; "attacking them and killing every man" pp. 216-217.

5x expanded by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 01:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Five times expanded, well-referenced and neutrally written throughout, Earwig finds only a book title and one short unavoidable phrase. Hook is interesting and cited, QPQ done, ready to go. Good work. The illustration by Poirson was a nice find! Moonraker (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Transverse aeolian ridges

Polygonal 'networked' TARs form intriguing patterns of pentagons and hexagons.
Polygonal 'networked' TARs form intriguing patterns of pentagons and hexagons.
  • ... that fossilized ridges on the surface of Mars can preserve information about the past Martian climate?
    • ALT1: ... that wind creates dunes and ripples on Earth, but a third type of aeolian bedform can be found on Mars?
  • Comment: Created in my sandbox September 15, 2020, moved article October 28, 2020.

5x expanded by TimNMcN (talk). Self-nominated at 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Article created 1 day ago, new enough, long enough, hook short and interesting, QPQ done, image used and proper. Passes hygiene check. Citation for the main hook is at #39 in the article. Main hook preferred. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Levels (Avicii song)

  • ... that Mike Posner was originally going to provide vocals for "Levels"? Source: "Posner shares, '...he would always ... send me tracks he was working on, and ask me to write to them. He actually sent me "Levels."'...he took not one pass at attempting a topline for the tune, but 'like 6 of em, because I couldn't get it right...I mean they were good, but not the thing.'"[58]
    • ALT1:... that Mike Posner was originally going to provide vocals for "Levels", but felt like they weren't the thing? Source: "Posner shares, '...he would always ... send me tracks he was working on, and ask me to write to them. He actually sent me "Levels."'...he took not one pass at attempting a topline for the tune, but 'like 6 of em, because I couldn't get it right...I mean they were good, but not the thing.'" [59]
    • ALT2:... that Mike Posner has claimed that he was originally going to provide vocals for "Levels"? "Posner shares, '...he would always ... send me tracks he was working on, and ask me to write to them. He actually sent me "Levels."'...he took not one pass at attempting a topline for the tune, but 'like 6 of em, because I couldn't get it right...I mean they were good, but not the thing.'"[60]
  • Reviewed: This is my second DYK nomination so a QPQ isn't required.

Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 29[edit]

Disappearance of Nicole Morin

Created by Yoninah (talk). Self-nominated at 12:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

Judith Sweet

  • Reviewed: TBD

Created by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

220 Central Park South

220 Central Park South
220 Central Park South

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Casaba-Howitzer

Casaba type warhead
Casaba type warhead

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Hook eligibility:

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

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg (1) "plasma" is a disambig (2) APRA is a disambig, but also a spelling error. It should be "ARPA". Also, the image link on Commons appeared to be broken, so I replaced it. Main and ALT1 sources both offline, but verified because I have the book Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

1901 FA Cup Final

  • ... that General Sir Redvers Buller, in a speech after the 1901 FA Cup Final, compared football to the Army by saying that the winning side is usually the one best practised at shooting? Source: "The Football Association Cup – The Final Tie". The Times, 22 April 1901, page 11. London: Times Newspapers Limited.
    • ALT1:... that Sheffield United's equalising goal in the 1901 FA Cup Final has been called "one of the most controversial ever scored in a final"? Source: Collett, Mike (2003). The Complete Record of the FA Cup, page 28. Cheltenham: SportsBooks Ltd.

5x expanded by No Great Shaker (talk). Self-nominated at 15:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Serious Sam Advance

  • ... that the video game Serious Sam Advance uses ray casting to simulate 3D computer graphics on the Game Boy Advance? Source: "Unfortunately, in game design the Serious Sam style [of Serious Sam Advance] isn't tailored very well for a raycasting engine on hardware [of the Game Boy Advance] that has a hard time keeping a smooth framerate in 3D engines.", Serious Sam (corresponds to ref #2)

Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

John Djopari

  • ... that John Djopari's book was banned by the Indonesian government although the book incorporates material from the Indonesian Army? Source: "It is worth noting that references to (and discussion of) the OPM were banned under Suharto's New Order. This ban extended to John Djopari's (1993) history of the OPM even though much of his account of the early years of the OPM was based on an official military history (see Kodam 1971)." John, Braithwaite; Valerie, Braithwaite; Michael, Cookson; Leah, Dunn (29 October 2020). Anomie and Violence: Non-truth and Reconciliation in Indonesian Peacebuilding. Canberra: Australian National University E-Press. p. 65. ISBN 9781921666230.

Created by Jeromi Mikhael (talk). Self-nominated at 07:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Dámasa Cabezón

  • ... that Dámasa Cabezón was contracted by the Bolivian government to establish a school for girls in La Paz after having done so in Santiago de Chile? Source: "Durante la progresista administración del ilustre General Ballivián, vino a La Paz contratada por este mandatario, la célebre educacionista señora Dámasa Cabezón que con tanto éxito dirigió en Chile un Colegio de señoritas, fundando en Bolivia análogo establecimiento ..." [61]
  • Reviewed: none required, this is my fifth DYK nomination
  • Comment: The source corresponds to ref. 5 in the article.

Created by Modussiccandi (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 30[edit]

Mitchell Miller (ice hockey)

Moved to mainspace by Bait30 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

John R. Casani

John R. Casani
John R. Casani
  • ... that John R. Casani (pictured) used to carry the Pioneer 3 and Pioneer 4 spacecraft in a suitcase? Source: "he was assigned as the payload integration engineer for Pioneers 3 and 4. These lunar flyby probes were so small he carried them to the University of Iowa in a suitcase to have their instruments calibrated." ([62])
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

Pact of Free Cities

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 01:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC).


Norma Shearer filmography

Norma Shearer with husband Irving Thalberg
Norma Shearer with husband Irving Thalberg
Quirk, Lawrence J. (1988). Norma : The Story of Norma Shearer (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-01798-7. pp 193-194 ... (re the offer for her to play Scarlett O'Hara) Norma let Howard Strickland and the Selznick people spread the word via strategically placed items in the gossip columns, that she was leaning towards accepting the role. At that, her fans came alive - they flooded the mails from Maine to California, from Washington state to Florida, begging her to back off. The letters' basic tone was, "You're too nice a person to play such a bitch!" ... she decided ... to withdraw her name from consideration. Years later ... she indicated that her rejection of Scarlett might have been a major mistake

5x expanded by Maile66 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:25, 30 October 2020 (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 intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [63]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [64].
April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=986203851"