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
July 2 1
July 11 1
July 13 1 1
July 15 1
July 29 1
August 4 1
August 7 1
August 9 2
August 11 1
August 17 1
August 19 1
August 20 1
August 21 1
August 26 1
August 27 1
August 29 2
August 30 2
August 31 1
September 1 2
September 2 2
September 3 1 1
September 4 4 2
September 5 5 5
September 6 5 5
September 7 10 8
September 8 13 7
September 9 6 5
September 10 12 8
September 11 10 4
September 12 14 9
September 13 8 5
September 14 8 6
September 15 11 9
September 16 15 3
September 17 6 3
September 18 8 3
September 19 15 8
September 20 7 3
September 21 3
September 22
Total 186 95
Last updated 05:06, 22 September 2021 UTC
Current time is 06:05, 22 September 2021 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 Publish page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.
III.

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

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

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]

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area
Check list for nomination review completeness
1) Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg.
2) Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
a. Any outstanding issue following Symbol confirmed.svg Symbol voting keep.svg needs to be addressed before promoting.
3) Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
4) Images must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
5) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
6) Hook should make sense grammatically.
7) Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
8) Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
  • In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
  • In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
1) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
a. Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
2) Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
a. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
b. Check that there's a bold link to the article.
3) If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
4) Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
5) Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
a. At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
6) Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
  1. At the upper left
    • Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • Change |passed= to |passed=yes
  2. At the bottom
    • Just above the line containing

      }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

      insert a new, separate line containing one of the following:
      To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
      To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
      To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
      To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
      To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
      To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
      To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]
    • Also paste the same thing into the edit summary.
  3. Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom.
  4. Save.

For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook.

Handy copy sources: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

  • Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
  • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue[edit]

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
    • View the edit history for that page
    • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
    • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
  • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
  • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name[edit]

  • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on July 2[edit]

Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis

Anvil clouds rising over a thunderstorm
Anvil clouds rising over a thunderstorm

Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 19:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC).

Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - We seem to be at the frontiers of science with this topic and so the extent to which such sources can be considered reliable is debatable. I'd prefer a MEDRS level of sourcing – reviews or other statements of general consensus.
  • Neutral: Red XN - The article says that the hypothesis is "widely accepted" but that's not quite my impression. The source for that para says that it's popular but then proceeds to argue against it.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Green tickY

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - The hook's expression "anvil clouds warm less than Earth's surface" is an over-simplication which distorts the hypothesis. As I understand it, the hypothesis is that anvil clouds tend to top out in a fixed way, you'd get more of them with general warming and so there's a positive feedback. Expressing this succinctly and accurately in a hook seems difficult.
  • Interesting: Green tickY

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I'm tempted to edit the article myself but will give the nominator some space first... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Jo-Jo Eumerus, Andrew Davidson, it's been three weeks since the review and I don't see any article edits; where does this nomination stand? Jo-Jo Eumerus, please note that responding inside that DYK checklist template can prevent the approved nomination from being moved by the bot to the Approved page; I'd like to suggest that you move your comments so they are below the template (either just above or just below this comment), so their placement doesn't cause issues down the road. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    OK, moved my comments to all the red issues here:
    • According to Web of Science, this is the only review article available. There is also this IPCC report which mentions it. You are not going to get an useful article out of only review articles, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • That wouldn't be a very high-weight objection, then, since it'd be backed by only one paper. From reading the rest of the literature I get the impression that only the two refinements discussed but they apparently haven't caught on yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • No, the hypothesis is precisely that anvil clouds don't warm if Earth's surface does. Their total volume is a different theory altogether. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Changed the caption, but I am not sure if the image description is enough of a source for the caption to say "Hector". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      Andrew Davidson, please continue the review, now that Jo-Jo Eumerus has addressed the issues you raised. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The nominator does not seem to have addressed the issues; just disagreed with them. My views are unchanged so we have an impasse. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't agree that MEDRS-level sourcing is needed for this one - for one thing, it's not a matter of life and death. And I disagree on the other issues, too. I dunno, what's the procedure when nominator and reviewer of a DYK disagree on an issue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: if it's intractable, the nominator can request a second opinion using {{subst:DYK?again}}.

  • To clarify the procedural issue, WP:DYKHOOK states that "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change...". An unproven and uncertain hypothesis is, by its nature, not well-established. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The hook, though, isn't about whether the clouds warm or not, but about the hypothesis itself. Its definition is unlikely to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Andrew Davidson: Just weighing in here with my two cents. Could we change it to something like this so it seems less authoritative?

ALT1:... that the fixed anvil temperature hypothesis proposes that anvil clouds (pictured) do not remove excess radiation as the Earth's surface temperature increases?
We don't have to go with this exact hook (I'm sure I'm not really grasping the science-y bit). But maybe a hook that emphasizes that it's just a hypothesis would be a good middleground? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
A bit more technical than the original, but it works I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Since Andrew Davidson hasn't returned, calling on a new reviewer to check proposed ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I've not gone away and am still watching but still feel negative about this for the reasons given above and ALT1 has not changed my view. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg The article itself still has many issues, as the original reviewer pointed out. However, I'm willing to go with ALT1 if everything else can be corrected per the original review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As it stands, I don't think that most of the "issues" are actionable. Most of the sources that mention this hypothesis state that it's a possibility w/o giving much further detail and other than the things covered under "alternative views" there isn't much if any rebuttals. I don't think you can use this source to argue against it in Wikipedia voice - it's basically "others accept this view but I don't see it in my models" which is good enough to write an "alternative view" section but not for a "it's debatable statement" as "others" outnumbers "I". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm sorry for the delay—I think I'm in over my head with this nomination, I'm not up to snuff with what's needed for scientific sourcing. If someone else could re-review, that would be good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 11[edit]

Pisanhari Ki Marhia

Pisanhari ki Marhia
Pisanhari ki Marhia
  • ... that a Jain temple campus sprawling across 18 acres named Pisanhari Ki Marhia (pictured) is a tribute to Pisanhari, the poor old lady, who constructed a one room temple by saving money from milling flours in 1442 CE? Mitra, Swati (2012). Temples of Madhya Pradesh (1 ed.). Goodearth Publications. ISBN 9789380262499.

Created by Loveallwiki (talk) and Pratyk321 (talk). Nominated by Loveallwiki (talk) at 06:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC).

  • @Loveallwiki:, I have rephrased the hook. Please let me know your thoughts on this? Pratyk321 (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pratyk321:, Good, i have modified it a little to emphasize the notability due to vintage and present expanse. pl have a look.LoveAll (talk). 06:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Loveallwiki: We're not looking to say everything in the hook, just need to mention something interesting that readers will click on to find out more. Let's keep both hooks. The reviewer can help us decide the best-suited hook. Thanks and regards Pratyk321 (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Isabelle, you're welcome to pick any nomination you wish to review. Please go ahead. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Loveallwiki: Alrighty! First the basics: the article was posted for review on 16 July, so within 7 days of being moved to main space; it has not been featured previously; and at 1907 characters it is long enough. Concerning the sources, I don't have access to some of them, while others that I do have access are in Hindi, so I'll assume good faith here. I did notice two issues, though. One of the sentences in "History" does not appear to be sourced (and could use with better phrasing): The woman who does this work is called "Pisanhari" and "Marhia" is a very small temple generally consisting of a single room. That is why the temple is called "Pisanhari ki Marhia" (Temple of Pisanhari). This appear to be stated as a matter of fact, but I'd like a source on this. Also, source number 5 (the website that rings a loud bell when you load it) appears to be a WP:UCG sort of website, if that's the case, it's not a reliable source and should be avoided. Aside from these two main issues, the article is in desperate need of copy-editing. I'll await an answer from the nominator. Isabelle 🔔 13:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Copyedit? OK lets look at it. The second sentence says that it was paid for by a poor woman who milled flour .... who made enough money to build a temple. Really? Nice fiction, but I suggest that someone takes this in hand or it should be removed from the queue. Victuallers (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that the nominator gasn't edited since August 28th. I left them a talk page message recently, but they need to respond soon and address any remaining issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article still has issues in that the sentence that needs rewriting was not changed, the hook needs to reflect that the name of the temple's origins is from a legend, and it seems the article needs to be moved to its redirect, Pisanhari Ki Madiya, which appears to be the temple's common name, as all accessable sources in the article use it, instead of "Pisanhari Ki Marhia". Courtsey ping to Loveallwiki. Isabelle 🔔 15:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Isabelle: i have copy edited the History section to some extent. Hope it is acceptable now. The redirect from "Pisanhari ki Madiya" already exists. i propose the following hook: ALT2: ... that a poor old lady called "Pisanhari" built a temple with her own savings in 1442 CE? Please guide further. LoveAll (talk). 11:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 15[edit]

Osa Maliki

Moved to mainspace by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 09:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC).

  • Length, date, sourcing, qpq checks out. However, I find that the wording of the hook doesn't catch the essence here. I'd suggest ALT1: "... that Osa Maliki, a former Communist Party of Indonesia member, cooperated with army commander and religious groups in an anti-communist purge inside the Indonesian National Party?" --Soman (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Soman: Sure, that’d be fine too. Juxlos (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to complete the review including checking proposed ALT1 hook by first reviewer (original hook has been struck). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg@Juxlos and Soman: Hmmm.. the hook depends of him being a member of the communist party (but the ref won't load) and anti-communist moves which are in the (very long) referenced document (I think) but I cannot (quickly) see where it says anything like "cooperated with army commander and religious groups in an anti-communist purge" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs)
I'm bowing out (or at least I did some time ago). I cannot equate the PKI with communism and I don't know why Maliki objected to the PKI (it may be because they were communist). Too complex. I cannot check the first ref as its in Indonesian. Victuallers (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The wording in the article is "By mid-October, army commanders and religious groups have backed and cooperated with Osa's faction in eliminating supposed pro-PKI elements from PNI". I'd say that is very close to ALT1. --Soman (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 29[edit]

The Boy Behind the Door

Created/expanded by Throast (talk) and Filmomusico (talk). Nominated by Filmomusico (talk) at 18:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced and neutral. However, picked up a 61.9% similarity to this website. I do not see any timestamps to see when the website was published so I have no idea which website copied from which. I'll assume good faith, so I just need your confirmation that you (or another editor) did not copied from the website. The hooks are cited it article and interesting. However, ALT0 is less interesting than it could be as it seems to place emphasis on the location rather than the period of time which I find more interesting. I had to read ALT1 multiple times before I knew what it meant so you might have to alter it a bit. Nominator only has 2 prior nominations so no QPQ needed. Ping me in your replies! Pamzeis (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Pamzeis: I don't go to Persian websites, so you have my consent that I didn't copy paste from it. I also need to assume that creator of the article wasn't aware of it existence either. I also removed an uninteresting hook (as you suggested), and added a different one in ALT1 as well as altering the hook that you found to be of interest.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg Sorry for the late reply. I got 7 notifications this morning so I must have gotten everything mixed up. I've tweaked ALT1. I'll AGF that you didn't copy from the website. Pamzeis (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. As I said earlier, I didn't even knew of this site's existence.--Filmomusico (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: The Persian website appears to have copied the lead and parts of the development section word for word, which I wrote. All of my contributions to the article were written by me. I just want to clear that up. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Returning to the nominations page for tag to be addressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: Please address the "Plot too long" tag so that this nomination can proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Whoever nominated this article can shorten the plot. As I haven't written the summary myself, it would probably take a lot of time for me to do it since large passages would have to be rewritten. I don't have the time on my hands to do that right now. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: The plot section was added by an IP. Do you want to address the issue, because if not, I will mark this for closure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: The ping did worked but thank you for heads up on my talkpage, those pings sometimes don't go through. You mean, do I want to include an IP as a contributor? If you will close it, does it mean that the article will be nominated?--Filmomusico (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I restored the plot to its original size, while the nomination is in process. Should I warn an IP about not editing the particular article because it might become a DYK?--Filmomusico (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: You are not really solving the issue at hand. Since you are the nominator of the article, the burden is on you to make sure the article is eligible. The current plot summary is still too long per WP:FILMPLOT. It simply needs to be rewritten. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: I never saw the film. How would I know what to remove and what not?--Filmomusico (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
See my response on your talk page. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
In my view the plot section is still way too long. You could set the scene with the first couple of paragraphs and then summarise the rest in a few brief sentences, without all the detail. I have added the IP to the credits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Note: The maximum allowed hook length is 200 characters, but ALT1 is 239. It will have to be trimmed or replaced. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Any updates on the plot? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't plan on shortening the plot. But then again, I didn't nominate the article. As far as I'm concerned, this can be closed. Throast (talk | contribs) 11:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I have struck both hooks. The first hook is oddly phrased, the relevant sentence is not directly cited in the article, and the rogerebert.com article cited here after the hook does not mention anything that I can see about rejection by production companies. The second hook is too long. The plot template needs to be taken care of—by my count, the plot is 717 words and the maximum according to MOS:PLOTLENGTH is 700 words, so only a very minor reduction is required, though it should probably be significantly shorter, as Cwmhiraeth notes above: every setback doesn't need to be detailed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Since I wrote the "Development" section on the article, I feel like I need to correct you. The Roger Ebert source pertains to the first half-sentence, as the ref placement suggests. The info regarding the production companies is cited by the Forbes souce further below (Powell and/or Charbonier mention it in the transcluded interview; it also sources the following sentence, which is why it is placed further below). Throast (talk | contribs) 18:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: any updates on the plot (again)? As Throast does not plan to do anything about it and you are the nominator, you will have to shorten it to less than 700 words. If this is not done within the next week, we may have to reject this DYK nom. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: Somebody already shortened the plot on the 7th. It still have almost 3k characters, but I don't know which paragraphs should I remove in order for it to make sense to the reader. Obviously, the first and last sentence look good. I can try the middle. Did it to my best abilities.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, the plot's been sorted. Now, onto the hooks: both hooks are sourced to a Forbes contributor post, which is unreliable per RSP. Thus, we need an alternative or better source. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I found two alternate sources that mention the connection with The Goonies, though I'm not sure about their reliability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about their reliability too but looking through them, they both have contact pages ([1][2]) for, I presume, corrections, etc. I'm not really sure if they should be used for factual information and would recommend Filmomusico to ask at WP:RSN. Pamzeis (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Every website nowadays have a contact page - that's not news. I can ask, but I am 100% certain that those won't be considered as a reliable source. I'm shocked to learn that Forbes is no longer a reliable source, despite the fact that it's widely used as a backup source when it comes to economics.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: Interesting. According to this: "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors" makes Forbes a reliable source. I don't really understand how Forbes can be approved as a reliable source but Forbes.com is not, if, and I am 100% certain on this, that whatever is published by them in print is also available online.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: Forbes and Forbes Contributors are counted differently on the page you're quoting from. Forbes Staff is fine but Forbes Contributors isn't because it's not actually Forbes' writers and they don't really check it. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Forbes staff posts are reliable but Forbes contributors' post are not. If you have a look at the author line on the Forbes post, you'll see it says "Contributor"; those kind of posts have minimal editorial oversight and are considered unreliable. Pamzeis (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I asked a question. So far - nothing.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Five days later, we have no response. (that's potentially because you asked at WT:RSN and not WP:RSN.) If we have no more responses within the next two days, I would like to request you to include an alt. Pamzeis (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 4[edit]

Division of Industrial Hygiene

A 1941 film about the Division of Industrial Hygiene. Click to play an excerpt.
Source: "Building 2 contained the first laboratories in the United States built solely for the study of industrial hygiene in the nation." [3], p. 30; "The DOH now occupies... a converted warehouse building in Cincinnati" [4], p. 201; "Unfortunately, during the 1950s occupational health was not a major concern. Most Americans in the 1950s were uninterested in occupational health." [5], p.17
  • Reviewed: Ian Fraser Muir
  • Comment: The Division of Industrial Hygiene is the direct predecessor of NIOSH. The article is entirely historical, but I still request an experienced reviewer to check for COI issues.

Moved to mainspace by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 04:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC).


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - I'm concerned that the sourcing used for the hook is WP:SYNTH–do you have a source that shows that worker health falling out of favour caused the relocation, and that they weren't merely coincidental? I could be wrong.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I don't see any WP:POV problems due to WP:COI–another editor can take a look, if they'd like, but I think it's fine. As soon as the sourcing works out, we are good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
@Theleekycauldron: The hook is specifically worded so that it does not imply a causative link. It says the relocation happened "when" worker health fell out of favor, not "because" of it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski: Sure, that puts it in a grey area– but in a 200-character text bite like DYK, people aren't going to see the two pieces of information and assume that they're independent, or not causative (at least, in my opinion). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH: repinging because i messed it up theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): aaaaaaaaaaa theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC) <- this did not work either
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: It's not a grey area; these words have specific meanings, and the hook uses the right words to mean the intended and correct thing. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I agree with you that the literal, facial meaning of your words does not imply causation. I think, though, that on a forum like DYK, even the quick-glance notion that two separate statements might be connected leave some people thinking that there's a causation, or that one provides context for the other. Also, if it really isn't connected, it shouldn't be in the hook–we're going for one fact at a time. If we can't show that one is the context or cause for the other, they shouldn't be in the same hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Would it be sufficiently clear if we replaced "when" with "at the same time that"? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): possibly– i guess my question is why include the two together at all, if they're unrelated? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: They are related. Moving from a nice building to a crummy one happened in the context of their research topic falling out of favor. I was careful with the language because I don't have a source that directly confirms a causal link, but it does provide the relevant broader context in which the move happened. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): In that case, I think you would need to show with sourcing that one serves as relevant context for the other. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Do you need a source that the Division of Industrial Hygiene focused on worker health? There are lots of those. Maybe the problem is that "industrial hygiene" is an unfamiliar term; it's essentially a synonym for worker health studies and interventions. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I'm leaning towards no, you would need a source that directly confirms the statement you're making. It is sensible to say that because the division was focused on industrial health (something you can show) and because worker health fell out of favour (something you can show), that the division relocated. Perfectly logical step–but wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, and we aren't able to make that step without a secondary source providing direct confirmation that one is context for the other. Is there no way we can show that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
If not, I'd say that the hook is probably more trouble than it's worth. May I suggest some alternate hooks?
ALT1: ... that one program at the Division of Industrial Hygiene was focused on preventing poisoning due to TNT at government-owned explosives factories operated by contractors during World War II? source: "To prevent a repitition of high mortality from diseases such as TNT poisoning, which occured in World War I, the Ordnance Department and the Public Health Service entered into an agreement whereby the Division of Industrial Hygiene would provide occupational medical and industrial hygiene services to government-owned, contractor-operated arsenals. source
ALT2: ... that one program at the Division of Industrial Hygiene during the mid-1960s was focused on lung cancer among uranium miners? "In 1967, however, several lung victims received wide publicity, which motivated the Joint Committee to schedule hearings on the nature and extent of lung cancer among uranium miners. source
Your choice, of course–these are just suggestions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I don't think you understand what the hook is saying. There is no "because" in the hook. It's not WP:SYNTHESIS to state that two things happened at the same time and pertain to the same topic, while using specific language that does not assert there is a causal link. In my long experience at DYK I believe this should be considered acceptable. Given that it looks like you have only three DYK credits at this time, if you don't mind, I'd like to get a third opinion from a more experienced reviewer on this. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): i mean i can't stop ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll ping @Vaticidalprophet and BD2412 for you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Am I pinged here for any reason in particular? BD2412 T 15:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: the nominator's asked for a third opinion/review, do you mind helping out? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I would disagree with the notion that worker health "fell out of favor"; to the contrary, the fuctions of the division were overtaken by OSHA, which is a quite far-reaching worker safety regime. BD2412 T 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg That's not correct. OSHA and NIOSH were created in 1971; this statement is about the 1950s. Also, this division's functions were taken over by NIOSH, not OSHA. Can we have a reviewer who will actually look at the sources? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Which source do you propose stands for the rather bold proposition that "worker health fell out of favor"? BD2412 T 19:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: It's listed right under the hook. I can find more sources too. After WWII, worker health received less attention and resources until it came back into focus during the 1960s, which led to the creation of NIOSH and OSHA in 1971. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps something more like, "when interest in worker health waned". BD2412 T 20:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: That works great. It makes it clear that the loss of interest wasn't a permanent state. So:
John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this is entirely acceptable. I do not see any unsupported assertion of but-for causation in the hook. BD2412 T 20:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually, one other tweak - perhaps it should say "as interest in worker health waned" rather than "when interest in worker health waned". BD2412 T 20:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about the same change. Either is fine with me. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I think "as" is slightly better.
BD2412 T 22:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: Okay! Any other issues or can you approve it? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Yes, for ALT 0b. It is not far from the character limit, but excluding the "(depicted in video)" language, it is within bounds. BD2412 T 00:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I was about to promote this to prep, but find the hook unsupported by the article. The Division seems to have moved to Cincinnati in 1950, but that was before the budget cuts and the time when interest in worker health is said to have waned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth and Theleekycauldron: The short answer is that the move occurred in 1950 and the source says interest waned in the 1950s, so they overlap. The slightly longer answer is that both were part of longer processes that occurred from the end of WWII until the mid-1950s. The Division's administrative staff already moved out of Bethesda in 1947, the location in the warehouse was made for budget reasons, programs began to be eliminated in 1951, and 1953 saw especially deep cuts. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I'm sure you are right, but I'm not sure that is reflected in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been traveling and moving to a new city the last few weeks. I should have time sometime next week to revise the article text to support the hook better. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 7[edit]

Why (Yoko Ono song)

  • ... "Why" John Lennon's guitar playing was credited as being better than Jimi Hendrix's and an influence on the Pixies? Source: Blaney: "... later bands, such as the pixies, must have been influenced by his extraordinary playing on this record. Jimi Hendrix may have turned guitar playing into an art form, but Lennon’s work on this track eclipses anything produced by Hendrix or any other guitar hero."
    • ALT1:... that biographer John Blaney claimed John Lennon's guitar playing on the song "Why" was better than Jimi Hendrix's?
  • Reviewed: Song Kok Hoo
  • Comment: I am open to a more standard wording of the hook, but this seems "hookier"

Converted from a redirect by Rlendog (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC).

  • Not a review, but could you please have a read of WP:DYKHOOK? Schwede66 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you have a particular concern? I can revise the hook if necessary but I don't see anything that explicitly violates WP:DYKHOOK. Rlendog (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm proposing ALT1 @Schwede66: and @Rlendog: I think it should be a little closer to a standard DYK hook. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem rewording the hook although I don't think a hook needs to be that specific about who said it. Although I think the original is hookier, if the form is a problem then I'd propose:
    ALT2:... that John Lennon's guitar playing on the song "Why" was credited as being better than Jimi Hendrix' and an influence on the Pixies? Comment by Rlendog
    @Rlendog: I was unsure about the grammar on the original hook, but the main issue is that its a WP:easter egg. It's really clever but readers should have some idea what the bold link leads to. It also was (I think) just that Beatles biographer who said Lennon's playing on "Why" was better than Hendrix and influenced the Pixies. The hook you proposed makes it seem like general consensus. The reference makes it seem like Blaney personally feels this, so I think the hook should reflect that in some way. It also feels a bit clunky since there's two hooky bits (Hendrix and the Pixies). BuySomeApples (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think that ALT2 is worded as a general consensus but if people think that it would cause confusion to that effect I am fine with ALT1 as well. Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg review still needed to assess nomination and alternate hooks. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I fixed the formatting of the bullets. - I looked at the article, and don't understand why in a song by a woman, with the unusual feature of the lyrics being one word, all hooks so far focus on the comparison of the playing of two men. If you want me as a reviewer, say something mentioning the singer's name, and don't focus on one reviewer's biographer's judgement. - Perhaps you will not want me because I'd remark that I'd like first facts, than some reviewer's biographer's judgement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • completely irrelevant comment—hot damn gerda, them be fightin' words /j theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
      I fixed your indenting as well. Please, y'all, read the top essay on User talk:Drmies. - English isn't my first language, and hot damn tells me nothing, nor fightin' words when I just tried to clarify. I looked for something to review, and this was a candidate, but I wouldn't approve any of the hooks as written. How about you review it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
      @Gerda Arendt: sorry about that, I didn't know you don't speak english as a first language. Although I do appreciate your use of "y'all". All i meant was that i thought you were very outspoken about the way your reviewing style, and I appreciated it. It was very up-front and aggressive in an enjoyable way, and i was complimenting you on that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
      as for the review itself, I'm happy for you to take it. no objections here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • When researching the article much of the reviewer comments focused on Lennon's guitar playing and how important and even influential it was. And given that Jimi Hendrix is often considered the greatest rock guitarist ever, and Lennon is generally not even considered the best guitarist in the Beatles, the fact that a credible music journalist suggested that Lennon's playing on this song was better than Hendrix seemed to be the most surprising thing about the song.Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I think we need to revise the Easter Egg guideline. Sure, if you click on "News" and you get an article about a song, rabbit or camel called "News" then that is an Easter Egg. However, IMO the proposed hook above was ovoid, smelt of chocolate, it was covered with silver paper and it had a ribbon around it. No one should be surprised to find out that this very Eastery, very eggy and very hooky hook leads to an Easter Egg. Victuallers (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment to @Rlendog, Schwede66, and Victuallers: we had a similar problem at Template:Did you know nominations/Indradi Thanos—we solved it by keeping the original hook for April Fools' day. I think something like that would fit well here, does that work for you all?
That works for me. Rlendog (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, once Schwede66 signs off on it I'll do a full review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
A couple more ALTs in case we don't want to use one based on Lennon's guitar playing:
ALT3 ... that "Why" is the only lyric? or
ALT4 ... that why is the only lyric of "Why"? Rlendog (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: still holding on objection to ALT0? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, if the DYK community thinks it’s ok, I won’t be in the way. Schwede66 19:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I saw in the WT:DYK discussion, consensus was leaning against the Easter Egg hooks, so perhaps a new direction is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I don't think that's true, i think consensus was leaning toward validation (although I agree with the objection that the article and sourcing doesn't quite work for itself). The WP:EGGiness of it seemed to be supported, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the only editor other than the nom who was 100% on-board with the hooks was The C of E, the other editors were either neutral or against the hooks (although not all due to WP:EGG concerns; Levivich for example had other issues with them). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
That's not how I would have summarised it. Victuallers (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 9[edit]

Architextiles

  • ... that architextiles, a textile-based approach in architecture, is creating innovative, interactive and live designs? [6]: 5–20 
    • ALT1:... that architextiles is better able to respond to society's rapidly changing cultural and consumer demands, allowing for the creation of more dynamic, flexible, interactive, event-based, and process-based spaces? Source [7]: 5–20 
    • ALT2:... that architextiles architextiles can better respond to society's rapidly changing cultural and consumer demands, allowing for the creation of more dynamic, flexible, interactive, event, and process-based spaces? Source [8]: 5–20 

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 09:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC).

  • The hook here has little or no meaning, looks just like marketingspeak. Readers, if they are tempted will come away from the article thinking "How on earth do textiles influence architecture. This article doesn't tell us. Nom has also not quoted us the source upon which this hook is supported by. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • RAJIVVASUDEV, the ALT hooks do read like overhyped publicity; allowing for the creation of more dynamic, flexible, interactive, event, and process-based spaces is the sort of prose you get in ads. Indeed, all three hooks contain MOS:PUFFERY, which is why I've struck them. The article should avoid puffery as well even if it is in a source, since this is an encyclopedia. A specific example of architextiles might do better as a starting point for a hook. The article also needs a copyedit before this nomination can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:Thank you for your review and comments; I will make the necessary changes, though allowing for the creation of more dynamic, flexible, interactive, event, and process-based spaces are some of the critical characteristics of architextiles. I value your advice. Regards RV (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Kindly have a look at the revisions. Thanks RV (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to note that the latest hook suggestion (ALT3) has moved the marketingspeak away from the hook, well done. Unfortunately, the suggested source is pure marketingspeak, bereft of meaning, and only supports the fact that something called "Hylozoic Ground" appeared at the biennalle, but doesn't inform us what it is. I also note that our article for Hylozoic Ground is a stub written by nom, and is very sparse on meaning too. This should not go on the main page as a DYK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • RAJIVVASUDEV, I'm not going to have time to give the article a full review, but there have been improvements in the tone of the article, for which I thank you. Reading it anew, there are things that stick out to me, including the very broad claim in the lede of Architextiles are satisfying the need of today's society that requires flexible, interactive, and process-based spaces. Do they really satisfy the need completely, which this implies? If not, then this is overstated. (I couldn't read the linked citations, so I don't know how far they go.) Are they perhaps one way/method to help satisfy the need?
The "Architextile ensembles" subsection needs more work: each of the three sentences has issues. The first has grammatical issues and "collection and blend" needs to be rephrased. The second sentence is a "For example", but the first item seems itself to be a superset of what follows, and the individual (technical) methods that follow should be wikilinked wherever possible, with the conclusion "are all" rather than "all are". The third sentence mentions "multidisciplinary branches", but then enumerates people in those branches almost entirely rather than the actual branches.
There are a number of further examples I could give: the article still needs a great deal of work before it's ready for DYK. The Prehistoric Traditional fabric structures similar to tents were found 150000 years ago. is another strong (and frankly dubious) claim that absolutely needs to be sourced and rewritten: the use of "Traditional" is dubious unless they've found several of them (and even then, it probably wouldn't be safe to go beyond "common"), and "found 150000 years ago" is simply not possible to document (we don't know anyone who existed 150000 years ago): if it had been found recently and dated to 150000 years old that's one thing, but you only cite one structure found dating from 13,000 years ago, an order of magnitude younger. "Historical structures" needs work in the introduction, the list (which is not grammatical and does not adequately explain some of the entries), and the use of the auctorial "we" in the sentence below the list is not encyclopedic and needs to be recast.
I'm sorry this isn't better news. Perhaps you can find another editor to help you work on the article. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset Thanks for your time and help. Best regards. RV (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
As per advice, changes have been made. Thanks RV (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed to see whether issues have been addressed, and whether article meets the DYK criteria, including prose. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • RV, I don't think this is quite ready yet. Here's a list of sentences that I don't find quite neutral. Feel free to object to any of them—and keep in mind that a good workaround for some of these is to attribute inline, instead of deleting.
  1. Architextiles help in providing flexible, interactive, and process-oriented spaces.
  2. It brings together professionals
  3. Lightweight, pliable nature, the paradigm, and various manufacturing techniques are some of the textiles' characteristics.
  4. Textiles inspire architects with their diverse properties, allowing them to express ideas in architecture and create spaces that are sensitive to their environments. this can't be attributed, this has to be tamped down
  5. Architects experiment with origami and three-dimensional fabrics in order to create dynamic and adaptable structures. also can't be attributed
  6. The dazzling tents, is this a name?
  7. Here are some examples of innovative, interactive and live designs of textile-inspired architextiles:
  8. In particular, it suits short-lived, temporary, and transportable structures. Programming is adjustable as per the requirement. Architextile demand is influenced by cultural, economic, and societal changes. For instance, the need for fast transformation of buildings in Tokyo and Los Angeles, drives the demand for innovative architect. There are other factors such as demand of light, smart, and re/deconstruction models. this entire paragraphed needs to be tamped down and/or attributed in different places
  9. Through sensing, processing, and actuating enhancements
  10. Architextiles are a stage in the evolution of spatial design towards more advanced architects.
  • Unencyclopedic, if not promotional, language:
  1. The other examples are: and Here are some examples of innovative, interactive and live designs of textile-inspired architextiles: the second one can be deleted
  2. it's a 40-storey building made by Peter Testa. He describes it as "Woven building". "it's" shouldn't be used, and it should be "as a" and "Woven" shouldn't be capitalized.
  3. It is an installation by Philip Beesley (Professor of University of Waterloo.) → "Philip Beesley, a Professor..."
  4. Architextiles is not a new concept; numerous historical architectural examples demonstrate that it has been used since ancient times. ancient times is vague; This should say something like "Examples of architextiles have been found dating back to..."
Theleekycauldron I appreciate your observations, kindly allow me to work on the same. Best regards RV (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • RV excellent work! I made a couple of tweaks, as long as you're on board, that part is good to go. Moving on to a full review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - I'd prefer if ALT3 didn't link to Hylozoic Ground—it's probably going to attract a lot of attention (possibly more so than the bolded article) and should be more up to snuff. This is my personal preference, though.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Almost there—ALTs 3 and 4 aren't that interesting, but ALT5 could work with some tweaks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I have fixed ALT5. Kindly have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV: my apologies, I meant ALT3. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 11[edit]

Sefine Shipyard

  • ... that the Sefine Shipyard in Turkey built a hybrid-electric ferry for Norway, which is among the important representatives of environmentally friendly ships with zero emission? "Sefine Tersanesi'nin ürettiği elektrikli feribot Norveç sularında", "Yaklaşık 145 metre uzunluğunda Lityum ION bataryalı hibrit bir feribot olan Basto Electric NB42, sıfır emisyonlu çevre dostu gemilerin önemli temsilcileri arasında bulunuyor." (in Turkish) [21]

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg Article is long enough and new enough, but writing is inconsistent, and could do with a copy edit from a native English speaker. Foreign language citations will need a Turkish speaker to comment on suitability. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@CeeGee: update on the nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Copy editing is pending by the Guild of Copy Editors. CeeGee 11:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Owain.davies, CeeGee, and Theleekycauldron: I've taken a stab at copyediting the page, in a bid to get this nomination moving. It's not going to be as good as a Guild copyedit, but I hope it is acceptable for DYK. I can't comment on the sources, unfortunately. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: it's not FA level prose, to be sure, but I think it's fine for DYK, and it's definitely a huge improvement. Nice work! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Now, we haul User:Owain.davies back here to finish the review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 17[edit]

Wilfried Gruhn

Wilfried Gruhn in 2018
Wilfried Gruhn in 2018
  • Reviewed: to come
  • Comment: Edwin Gordon deserves an article which isn't just a redirect.

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 07:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article largely meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been done. I didn't detect any close paraphrasing (this link detected by Earwig appears to be a false positive). The hook fact is mentioned in the article; however it lacks a footnote. In fact, the entire first paragraph of the "Scientific focus" section is unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review. This is one of four emergency nominations (all due today), - I'll deal with problems after the other three, and several missing qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    I asked for patience - until Edwin Gordon is created - in my comment when nominating, - didn't I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    One step done, reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Temple of Jupiter Apenninus --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Gerda, just to follow up: the paragraph I mentioned earlier is still unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    ... and the other article is still not written. On 9 September, three people died, and I got around to only one yet. A GA review is waiting. He will also have to wait, or should we comment out the paragraph? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Given that the hook is based on said paragraph, it must be referenced; commenting it out would mean that the hook would become unsupported and thus cannot be used. Gordon's article can wait since he isn't even directly mentioned in the article and his article's non-existence does not affect this article's eligibility. The issues will need to be resolved eventually, otherwise the nomination may end up being closed for staleness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I looked at the article, referenced the Gordon relation in general and the founding of the centre named after him, but commented out the names of scientific collaborator most of which have no article (yet).
ALT1: ... that Wilfried Gruhn (pictured) founded both the Gordon Institute for early childhood music learning in Freiburg and an international society dedicated to Leo Kestenberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I prefer the original hook, it seems more eye-catching. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not surprised. It would leave him in a Freiburg corner, instead of international expertise related to an educator with a vision who suffered under the Nazis. Repeating: I care more about what the millions reading only the hook will take home, than get the number of those who click from 600 to 900. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
In any case, neither hook can be approved at this time, because the specific sentence mentioning the founding of the school is still lacking a footnote. I will approve the nomination once this is accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I repaired the grammar in that sentence, but it has a ref, no? Some day, the whole thing should be restructured, having the foundation under Scientific focus, but right now, I'm going out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Okay, thanks for the edits. So I'm approving ALT0; although ALT1 was an acceptable hook, my concern was that it seems to be a bit too reliant on knowledge of either Gordon or Kestenberg, whereas ALT0 does not have this issue. Assuming good faith for the German source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the approval. I am a bit surprised, because without knowledge of Gordon, ALT0 means nothing, - nobody would get a Wikipedia article for opening a centre of early music learning. In that way, ALT0 relies more on knowledge. I, however, believe that no DYK relies on knowledge, but tries to present new knowledge. I didn't know Kestenberg until reading Gruhn, but am so grateful that it changed. Unstriking ALT1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg To the new reviewer: I had struck the original hook, thinking ALT1 presents a broader picture of a professor at international universities. What do you think?
    ALT1: ... that Wilfried Gruhn (pictured) founded both the Gordon Institute for early childhood music learning in Freiburg and an international society dedicated to Leo Kestenberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, let's put it this way. The original hook was fine, it tells about this person creating a school based on a theory. This is one of the rare cases where your original hook can actaully appeal to a broad audience. The theory has an article, and while it's named after a person, the hook wasn't reliant on knowledge of the person to work. The main point, that he founded a school based on a this particular theory, stood. ALT1, on the other hand, is reliant on a reader knowing Kestenberg. The original hook worked because it was focusing on Gordon's theory, not Gordon himself. Kestenberg, let's face it, is not a very well-known person, and I don't think his mention adds much to the hook (if I were a disinterested reader, I'd probably find it more interesting that Gruhn used a particular music theory rather than him establishing a society dedicated to someone I'd never heard of). This is not to downplay Kestenberg's achievements, but rather merely to explain why personally I feel that ALT0 is the better option. Had ALT1 been proposed from the start and ALT0 never existed, I would have been fine approving ALT1, but as it stands, there's a superior hook here and it's ALT0. As a compromise, if you want, I will unstrike ALT0 and let another editor choose between which of the two hooks they think is better, but personally I would really rather go with the original hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a hook you feel is superior, and I don't, and therefore had struck it, and you ignored me striking. ALT1 links to the very same theory article as ALT0, but - imho - adds something about Gruhn's exceptional efforts to get Kestenberg remembered, which is saying something about Gruhn, not Kestenberg. - If another reviewer agrees with you I'll reconsider. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 19[edit]

Insular crozier

Kells Crozier
Kells Crozier
  • ... that of the many Insular croziers (pictured) made between c. 800–1200 AD, only 12 fully intact examples survive? Source: Moss, Rachel. Medieval c. 400—c. 1600: Art and Architecture of Ireland. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. p310. ISBN 978-0-3001-7919-4
  • Reviewed: To Follow

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 20:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Ceoil: New enough and long enough. No QPQ. Citation to Moss in lead section paragraph 3 matches what's provided here: AGF on the offline source. No other textual issues; I'd go over the page again for spelling/grammar errors, though, as I caught a few. You might also want to learn about {{sfn}} given the source mix with so many books. Please ping me when QPQ is supplied. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Will do re sp./grammar, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ceoil: @Sammi Brie: A couple of questions, are there 12 (hook) or twenty (lead) fully intact examples? Is that after the destruction of the St Mel's Crozier? Should that section mention its destruction at the beginning and continue in the past tense? TSventon (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It was before, so will rephrase to hedge. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ceoil: should the hook say there are 20 (or 19) fully intact examples to agree with the article lead rather than 12, as at present? TSventon (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 20[edit]

Monarchy of Pakistan

5x expanded by Peter Ormond (talk). Self-nominated at 05:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

  • General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough, long enough and sourced. Unfortunately I think some of the text was copied from Dominion of Pakistan without attribution but it wasn't expanded 5x which makes it ineligible. This would have to be fixed.

No copyvio (false positives though) and qpq is not needed. I replaced a source in the article with a better source, and added it to the hooks which are cited and interesting. ALT1 is the most attention-grabbing imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

BuySomeApples, Peter Ormond ALT2 is the most interesting IMO. But is it WP:SYNTH or have sources made a similar claim?VR talk 05:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
"As Queen of Pakistan and of Ceylon, Elizabeth was the first British monarch to be crowned as sovereign of countries that were overwhelmingly non-Christian, but only minimal concessions were made to this new reality." Quoted in Westminster Abbey: A Thousand Years of National Pageantry, 2011, p. 177, ISBN 9781847650825 Peter Ormond 💬 17:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Nikkimaria in the hopes that she can determine just how much of this article was copied from Dominion of Pakistan without attribution, and if so, that will tell us how long the current article will need to be to qualify as a 5x expansion of that copied material. (It may qualify now; we don't know yet.) Also, the "citation needed" and "failed verification" templates in the first sentence need to be addressed, as does the OR template, before the nomination can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
It appears there was also content copied from other articles - for example the wording about "fount of justice" appeared in the Monarchy of Canada article before it appeared here, and "formally superior to the archbishop" etc came from Defender of the Faith. So aside from the question of length, this will need proper attribution for every article from which it has copied, and we need to know all of the articles copied to be able to assess length. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 21[edit]

Luís Gama

Luís Gama, circa 1880
Luís Gama, circa 1880
  • Comment: I started to expand this article in August 21 and he is a character that should be more known abroad. The PDF link is from the publisher itself, not an pirated copy. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

5x expanded by Erick Soares3 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

  • I'm not sure whether this is a 5x expansion. The version as of August 20 is 980 words, and the version as of August 28 is 4,206 -- although the article looks to have been vastly improved, so I don't expect to encounter any problems there. Have you considered nominating it as a GA? If it's made a GA, it'll immediately become eligible for DYK. jp×g 19:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Erick Soares3, the article had 6427 prose characters prior to when your expansion began on August 21. A 5x expansion would need therefore to be to 32135 prose characters, and the article currently has 27994 prose characters. You would need to add another 4141 prose characters to reach the 5x expansion. (DYK deals in prose characters, not words.) Do you think you could add that much new material to the article? If not, then doing a GA nomination may indeed be the way to go. Note that as the article expansion started on August 21, it should have been nominated within seven days, by August 28. It is up to jp×g to decide whether four days late on a second nomination should be given an exception. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello @JPxG and BlueMoonset: I didn't considered to nominate it as an GA, but I will read on it. On the 5x expansion: I didn't wrote that. it was just a thing that showed up when I did the nomination and I thought that it was just an automatic calculus from the template, but by the BlueMoonset reply, is clear that something went wrong. I've took sometime before nominating it because I wanted to finish the book that I was reading to improve the article. Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I followed your suggestions and nominated it as an GA. Let's see what happens. Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Erick Soares3, I see that you just removed the GA nomination. It is still possible for this DYK nomination to be considered if you think you'll be able to do the expansion now. Otherwise, we will have to close it as unsuccessful, but you can always renominate the article for DYK should you eventually succeed in bringing it to GA status. Best of luck, whatever you decide. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 26[edit]

La Folia Barockorchester

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 10:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): Gerda Arendt the article says, without a reference, that LFBO is named after La Folia, which redirects to a musical theme, but https://www.lafoliabarockorchester.net/lfbo-1 refers to a term “la folia” not the musical theme. TSventon (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    The two go together, I had no time to clarify, and won't until next week, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    TSventon: La Folia means not only the theme but the compositions based on it, described by ref Düren (now used) as "eine Form, die wildes und kühnes Spiel mit großer Freiheit zur Kreativität erlaubt" - a form that permits wild and bold play with great freedom to creativity, "play" not meaning instrumental playing but the playful music variation. Please check if it's now clear enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt: thank you, that is helpful, I see you have been busy over the last two weeks. TSventon (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for understanding. I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Karnabo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Might be a tad over seven days, but I think that's fine. Long enough, neutral, and mostly sourced to the best of my understanding. I made a slight copyedit to the lead. I think the hook needs tweaking, as the meaning is a bit unclear to those who do not understand the various nouns involved. (For example, I suggest dropping "from Dresden".) Gerda, could you tell me what exactly the 'hooky' bit is? Is it the broadcasting from an Abbey? CMD (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't want to drop Dresden, as the focus on music from the Dresden court is what they stand for. It's remarkable but perhaps not hooky - I'm known not to care much about hookiness - that not only they appeared at that notable festival, but also were broadcast, and then even by several stations. - I commented out the uncited soloists before I saw your note. They are not critical to the article. I have no time to dig up refs for them right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    To answer the question in an edit summary: typically such lists (which I dislike, but I just translated) go by alphabet, but here, I had two different references, so went by alphabet within reference. It would be better to say precisely who performed which music, but back to no time ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Gerda, I think that does not come through right now. Hookiness should convey what is remarkable. The "from Dresden", "at the Rheingau", and "from Eberbach" form a somewhat confusing string for a non-German speaker. Is there a way to rearrange the elements? CMD (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I said before I don't care about hookiness. Compromise:
    ALT1: ... that La Folia Barockorchester from Dresden performed at Eberbach Abbey in a broadcast concert of the 2021 Rheingau Musik Festival?
    Defending: Dresden may be for many readers the first word they know, because La Folia is Italian/Spanish and Barockorchester is German. I don't like the name of the ensemble but what can we do? Eberbach Abbey is widely known beyond classical music as a World Heritage Site, and as the location of the film The Name of the Rose. The festival is also widely known, and those who don't know can learn something new. Any 2021 performance is a gift, hooky or not. It was the first with singing after the lockdown but I wouldn't know where to put that in the limited space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    This should not be a search for a compromise, but a solution. If Dresden is to be included, why not ... that the Dresden-based La Folia Barockorchester...? That eliminates one from/at X, while also indicating what Dresden means. Shifting 2021 is a good idea, let's keep that shifted 2021, as it breaks up another from/at X. With both of those variations, I think either ALT0 or ALT1 would work much better. CMD (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I try to avoid links before the bold hook but as you wish. Could you please word a version that would please you? You can still approve as long no new facts are involved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 29[edit]

Apple worker organizations

  • Reviewed: Under 5 DYK nominations so not applicable

Created by Shushugah (talk). Self-nominated at 11:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC).

  • I have some concerns about this article that are more fundamental than the issues normally brought up at DYK. Despite the title of the article, the article content is a grab-bag of tangentially-related information. The lead does not mention worker organizations: it gives general information about Apple Inc. We get a list of incidents of industrial action, some of which mention unions and some don't. Space is given to #AppleToo which is a hashtag, not an organization. The China section mentions Apple contracting the Fair Labour Association. This doesn't make the Fair Labour Association an Apple worker organization, and it's hard to say what about the article topic is being said by that section.
So first, this needs work to become an article about what it purports to be about. Lots of suitable sources have been assembled and cited inline correctly, and this itself is very good work. The observations about how many workers Apple employs, that strikes occurred in different countries, and that Apple employees spoke out on social media could be part of an article about worker organizations, but they need text gluing them together and showing the reader how they relate to the topic.
I have lesser, but still relevant, concerns about the writing. In the China section, the tense suddenly changes for some reason. "successfully distances itself from direct responsibility" doesn't sound like neutral phrasing. In the Brazil section, "the local IndustriALL affiliate Brazilian Metalworkers Union was already well prepared" comes out of nowhere. The article needs to describe what the issue was, what the unions were trying to achieve, and then what the outcome was.
The hook uses the term "general strike". It's not clear why "general strike" is used rather than "strike". A "general strike" would imply that the workers' grievance was not against Apple retail stores in particular but that the strike was part of a wider regional or national action. If that's the case, why is it a significant fact about Apple worker organisations? This is an example of the narrative that needs to be filled in for the reader. Are you prepared to add this sort of additional content? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
PS I've just noticed that you also were a main contributor to IBM worker organization, and that's an example of what this new article could work towards. The topic of the article is introduced in the first sentence, then the lead expands on the overall context, then individual sections consider aspects of the topic in different countries. More like this please! MartinPoulter (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
MartinPoulter Thank you Martin for your extensive feedback. The hook's language uses the term strike. Since the wikilink strike leads to a disambiguation page, I selected a labor related one. Strike action would be more precise than general strike, since it is specific to this Apple store/employer in this case and not more broadly, so I will change that. Regarding your other feedback, I will edit it down for tone/neutral voice. The China section needs a complete rewrite/addition, including about recent independent Foxconn elections at Apple facilities, given that it is also the largest workforce location. I want to avoid making any WP:SYNTH about the relations between each of these actions/strikes. In a similar case, I created Police union, where a fork was created Police unions in the United States, but generally absent in depth coverage in one context, I prefer to keep it all under one article. Covering worker organisations in a large multinational company (unions and other) may be the most challenging endeavour yet, but I think there is ample coverage/sourcing in most cases. I don't quite know how to describe #AppleToo, but it's more than a hashtag, with some publicly associated workers behind it according to several linked articles. I think Italy/the hook is generally done (asides from changing strike target to strike action and I am prepared/will continue working on the other points you have mentioned. I could imagine expanding/renaming the article to Apple labour issues... allegations of Uighur labour and the like are labour issues, but not exactly examples of worker organizations. No one said building the WP:largest encyclopedia was going to be easy 😅 📲 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. DYK isn't just a check on the hook - which is good! - but a check that there are no major problems with the whole article before it's linked from the front page. Hence it's worth spending time on the fundamental issues of the article's scope and title before it passes DYK. I appreciate the sources don't fit neatly together the way we Wikipedia authors wish they did, and gathering info about the many dimensions of this issue is a lot of work. I want to encourage people to write about labour organization issues and, like I say, you've done good work on this elsewhere, but this article needs serious work before it's ready. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
MartinPoulter I have added an introductory lede, created a section on Foxconn Trade Union in China and removed non neutral language in Brasil. Do you have a preference timeline wise for a re-review? I was thinking of letting it sit for a few more days, re-reading/seeing if others want to make edits. It's very much a work in progress article. Will continue reading/searching broader analysis about Apple's union free environment in its formal employee workforce, and reliance on labour in limited collective bargaining states (India, Brasil are two exceptions) ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Shushugah Already moving in a very good direction. What an improvement to the China section! Happy to return to this next week to give you and others more opportunity to improve it. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

East Germany–Zanzibar relations

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 19:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article was created within the past seven days and is long enough; however, the hook is not cited with an incline citation. It may also be helpful to include the ambassador's name, Chargé d'Affaires Günther Fritsch, in the hook. Huey117 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Didn't notice the review above, anyway, I think the article is fine - the hook's claim is cited in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Genuine question: what exactly is meant by "permanent"? Günther Fritsch appears to have been there for a little over one year. If that is permanent, does it mean that other East German diplomats flew home for the weekends from their African countries? Schwede66 18:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Permanent residence' is an established term in diplomacy, there is a difference between ambassadors accredited to a country but based somewhere else and those that are based in the country where they are accredited. --Soman (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I see. I wonder how well known that is. I'm familiar with the concept of permanent residency and in particular New Zealand permanent residency. There's unfortunately not an article about the diplomacy term. I wonder whether it's possible to set up a redirect to a relevant article and write something about the concept. I suspect that others will also struggle to get the point that is being conveyed here. Alternatively, maybe it needs an alternative hook that's less confusing / ambiguous. Beyond that, having now looked at the reference, I quote (page 64): "The outcome was the presence of the first East German ambassador to take up permanent residence in a recognised African state." I'm not sure what exactly is being referred to by "recognised state" but I would assume that it's a subset of all African states. Would it therefore be possible that what the hook conveys does not necessarily align with what the source says? Schwede66 23:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg user:Soman, the above needs some attention. Maybe an alt hook is best. Schwede66 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 30[edit]

Tungia Baker

  • ... that Tungia Baker influenced contemporary Māori theatre, film, television, fine arts and classical music? Source: "Baker was an influence on younger theatre practitioners including writer Riwia Brown and actor and director Nancy Brunning.[1][2]""The current screen advocacy group for Māori, Ngā Aho Whakaari, have acknowledged Baker along with others for their contributions to Māori film makers.[3]""Baker was part of an exhibition Karanga Karanga at the City Gallery in Wellington (1986) organised by Haeata, a Wellington Māori women’s art collective that Baker was also a member of. The show was in part a response to Te Māori a major international exhibition of Māori art that did not include women's arts forms."City Gallery Wellington". City Gallery. Retrieved 2021-08-30.</ref>[4]"Whitehead tells of a time when they were making Ipu when Baker gave musician Nunns a Māori rattle instrument she had made as a replica of one from a museum, 'another sound came back into the modern world'."[5]"
    • ALT1:... that Tungia Baker influenced contemporary Māori theatre and film? Source: "Baker was an influence on younger theatre practitioners including writer Riwia Brown and actor and director Nancy Brunning.[6][7]""The current screen advocacy group for Māori, Ngā Aho Whakaari, have acknowledged Baker along with others for their contributions to Māori film makers.[3]

5x expanded by Pakoire (talk). Self-nominated at 23:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is recently expanded and long enough. There's a current [citation needed] tag that should be addressed. The hook needs a some work. While the fact is kind of implied in bits here and there, it isn't really stated in the article. Also, it paints the subject as a widely influential figure, though I don't see that the references really report her influence outside of theatre. She may have been active in those various fields, but having influence on the work of individual artists isn't quite the same as influencing the entire fields, and my reading of the hook leans more towards the latter. I'd accept if the hook was trimmed down to theatre, based on the Theatreview source, or maybe another hook could be proposed. QPQ exempt, as this counts as Pakoire's fourth DYK nom.
    On an unrelated note which doesn't affect DYK eligibility, readers unfamiliar with Maori terms might find the article a bit hard to read. Consider italicising the terms per MOS:FOREIGN and providing glosses or explanations when they are used (though I realise they are not treated as such in New Zealand, so it's not wrong not to either). --Paul_012 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback. I am working on the article and Alt hooks, I have more to do - do you think the ALT I just provided that includes film might be ok? Also fyi - I have another DYI in progress so this will be 4th or 5th depending on progress. Pakoire (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Alt1 seems fine to me. (Incidentally, the ref website screenz.co.nz appears to have just gone down, but the citation is properly formatted so it's not a problem in the short term.) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brown, Riwia (2020). "Riwia Brown on Roimata". Playmarket Annual. 55: 6–7.
  2. ^ "New Zealand Theatre: theatre reviews, performance reviews". Theatreview. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  3. ^ a b "Up for tender: $3M for Māori programmes". SCREENZ. 2014-10-28. Retrieved 2021-08-31.
  4. ^ "Karanga Karanga". Te Tuhi. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  5. ^ "Breath of the Birds by Dame Gillian Whitehead". RNZ. 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2021-08-31.
  6. ^ Brown, Riwia (2020). "Riwia Brown on Roimata". Playmarket Annual. 55: 6–7.
  7. ^ "New Zealand Theatre: theatre reviews, performance reviews". Theatreview. Retrieved 2021-08-30.

Turkoman (ethnonym)

Territories where Oghuz languages are spoken today
Territories where Oghuz languages are spoken today
  • ... that a significant percentage of residents of Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan are descendants of Oghuz Turks, also known as Turkomans, and the languages they speak belong to a single group within one language family (pictured)? Sources: Shukurov, Rustam (1987). Fadl Allah Rashid ed-Din. Oghuzname (in Russian). Baku, Azerbaijan: Elm. pp. 1–26; Doerfer, Gerhard (1987). "Turks in Iran (Turkish translation)": 431. It is very strange that the word "Turkmen" still leads to confusion; in Leningrad, I saw that Iraqi Oghuz literature was cataloged under the name "Turkmen"; in fact, the word Turkman simply means an Oghuz nomad. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Improved to Good Article status by Visioncurve (talk). Self-nominated at 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment (not a review): Hello, good work on getting this article to GA status! I note that your hook doesn't include the title of the article; you will need to think of a new hook that includes the term "Turkoman" (which should be linked in bold in the hook, like so: Turkoman). This page has more information about composing a hook, which may be helpful. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging Visioncurve in case they missed the above comment. Note that you don't necessarily need a new hook if you can integrate a link to your DYK article into the existing hook. However, if you want the image used, you'll also have to integrate that into the hook so that it includes something like (pictured) or (helmet pictured). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The supplied hook is 221 prose characters including spaces and punctuation, well over the maximum of 200 (and it's better to be shorter than that). I have struck the hook; Visioncurve, please supply a new one that's shorter. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 31[edit]

Lady Glenorchy's Church

Lady Glenorchy's Church's facade
Lady Glenorchy's Church's facade

Created by Stephencdickson (talk). Nominated by Sahaib3005 (talk) at 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - The prose has a satisfactory number of citations, but many of the references are cryptic and unverifiable, from what I can tell, including "Grant's Old and New Edinburgh yol 2 p.360", "John Kay's Portraits vol.2 : Thomas Snell Jones", "Fasti Ecclesiastae Scoticana by Hew Scott", "Buildings of Scotland: Edinburgh by Gifford, McWilliam and Walker", and "Ewing's Annals of the Free Church". In general, the citations need more information. I believe that the lists of ministers and members also need citations to be eligible for DYK.
  • Neutral: Green tickY
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Green tickY
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I think the citation issues I mentioned above are the only thing that would keep this nomination from moving forward. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment
@Dugan Murphy:, @Stephencdickson: @Sahaib3005: I think this is an interesting article and to try to resolve the citing issues I have expanded the citations in question. Ewing's Annals is also available online but the link to the site is blocked by Wikipedia. I'm not sure that the lists of ministers need individual citations as several have Wikilinks, but I suspect they would all be covered by citing Fasti and Ewing's Annals. Could the nomination be reviewed again in the light of this expansion. Papamac (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Papamac! I think that the references are now sufficiently written out to be verifiable. The only issue now, as I see it, is the largely uncited lists of ministers and members. DYK rule D2 says "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." This rule does not exclude lists, so unless someone can show me a rule stating otherwise, I think there either needs to be one citation that covers each list or at least citation per line, like the listing for John Tawse WS. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, agreed @Dugan Murphy:. Hopefully the creator @Stephencdickson: or nominator @Sahaib3005: could add these. Papamac (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 1[edit]

Wolfgang Anheisser

  • Reviewed: to come

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

  • I have not reviewed the article or this nomination; I'm just noting that I've altered the proposed hook. Somebody who "studied voice" would be something like a linguist or maybe a vocologist, not a singer. So I've just removed the subject of study, since it's clear from the rest of the sentence that Anheisser was a singer. As for the rest, maybe "became the leading baritone at the Cologne Opera while simultaneously a member of East Berlin's State Opera"? - again simply because "belonged" seems like the wrong choice of word. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you, however, "performed" is not the same as "was a member of the ensemble of" which is true but too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt Gefällt es dir jetzt, da ich habe es einmal wieder verbessert? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    Es gefällt mir:
    ALT0a: ... that Wolfgang Anheisser, who studied in Johannesburg, was the leading baritone at the Cologne Opera while simultaneously a member of East Berlin's State Opera"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Altars for Peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been done. The hook fact for ALT0/ALT0a is only mentioned in the lede and not the body, and does not have a reference. In fact, the article body doesn't even suggest that he was the leading baritone of the opera, merely that he performed leading roles. In addition, I don't think the mention of studying in Johannesburg is necessary in either hook, since it doesn't add much and the real hook fact here is that he was a member of two operas simultaneously. In addition, while undoubtedly tragic, I wonder if a hook about his death could be proposed, because personally I thought that was the most unusual and interesting part of the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, I'm going ahead and proposing an ALT based on his death:
    ALT1 ... that baritone Wolfgang Anheisser died during a performance of Millöcker's Der Bettelstudent, after falling from a balcony when a security device failed?
    I have to admit, dying in an opera performance is very unusual and this is the first time I've heard of such an incident. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for reviewing. The fact is mentioned but I see that it can be misleading. The German term is Erster Bariton, which translates to First baritone = leading baritone, but in a sentence, you don't see a difference to that he first became baritone. Help? - Johannesburg means he had to start from zero as a no-name, - it was unusually hard to make that career. But I understand that it's not obvious. You can probably imagine that I didn't want to mention his tragic death in a hook. ... and certainly not with the quirkyness of that funny piece (which wasn't his typical repertoire). ... and if the piece no link to the composer. - Did you ever hear of someone a member of a West German and an East German company at the same time? I didn't. His widow may read the hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
In which case, how about a simpler version of the original hook, one that gets straight to the point and doesn't try to include too many facts?
ALT0b ... that Wolfgang Anheisser was the leading baritone at the Cologne Opera while simultaneously a member of East Berlin's State Opera?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Accepted. Happy that I don't have to mention how we lost Iridescent as a DYK contributor by a sensationalist hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Narutolovehinata5, who can approve ALT0b since it's Gerda Arendt's ALT0a with the "studied" clause dropped and no other changes. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
... but who could also approve the original. I have seen many bios of German opera singers, but remember not a single one with studies abroad, and then that far away. We might add "German" but I think his name is German enough, and then Cologne and Berlin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Academese

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg I'm surprised there wasn't an article on this subject until yesterday. This is pretty well-written, comprehensive, and neutrally written. Of course, people have a lot of opinions, but the article is presenting them as opinions, rather than fact. Mostly, the one issue I have is that I think that the article could stand to have a little copyediting (phrases like "Another comic that made fun of this topic is" don't strike me as encyclopedic). jp×g 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How can the subject be featured in Calvin and Hobbes in 2013 if the comic was last published in 1995? Thriley (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's re-ran from 1993 theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 2[edit]

Kirovs Lipmans

  • ... that Latvian businessman Kirovs Lipmans has the personal motto, "If I promise something, I will do it"? [25][26]

5x expanded by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 18:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow, but given the article going to into great detail into his hockey activities, I'm surprised that no hook was proposed around that. The hook is okay, but he's not the only person (real or fictional) I've heard having that motto, so I'd highly suggested alternate hooks as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel that hooks which focus on ice hockey are less interesting to a broad audience and generate fewer page views than personal or business life. I will come back in a few days when I have more to say. Anyone else is welcome to suggest hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The smelting hook sounds okay, but smelting probably needs to be wikilinked for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the word. Not really a fan of the other suggestion since international readers may not be as familiar with the names. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
If it helps, I have no idea who those people are. I just thought it was unusual to be a hockey executive and sponsor singing competitions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the proposals. I'm still waiting for Flibirigit's response before proceeding with the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I have answered the concern why no hockey hook was proposed. Other adequate hooks have been proposed by User:HickoryOughtShirt?4. The next logical step is a full review of all DYK criteria. I am unsure why the reviewer is waiting. As per my previous comment, I will return when I have more to say. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that ice hockey executive Kirovs Lipmans was once the second richest person in Latvia? [27]
  • ALT4: ... that ice hockey executive Kirovs Lipmans also oversaw metallurgy and pharmaceutical companies? [28]
  • ALT5: ... that Latvian businessman Kirovs Lipmans transitioned Grindeks into a pharmaceutical company with 90 per cent of its products exported and a presence in European, Asian and American markets? [29]
  • ALT6: ... that despite political changes in Latvia during the 1990s, businessman Kirovs Lipmans remained to "do [his] best to make this a good and rich country"? [30]
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have proposed new hooks above. I have struck one word from ALT1 for better accuracy. I have struck ALT2 and replaced it with ALT4. A full review is still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Inger K. Frith

Created by SportsOlympic (talk). Self-nominated at 14:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Symbol delete vote.svg It has been over a week and the nominator has made very little effort to rectify many of the issues raised above, nor have they supplied a QPQ (I was considering donating a QPQ if issues were rectified). They have received a TP notification [31] and been pinged above, so unfortunately I think this should be marked as ineligible and closed. Cavalryman (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

  • Sources:
  1. "Inger K. Frith". Olympedia. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY consensus here seems to be this is fairly reliable, it only used to cite name, DOB & DOD which is uncontroversial (but other issue below)
  2. "Danish WW2 Pilots | Inger Kristine Frith (née Pragholm) (1909 - 1981)". www.danishww2pilots.dk. checkY the clarification in Plannthin's book that she was in fact enlisted in the South African Air Force answers the rank (see South African military ranks#Air Force) and service number questions. See general note below.
  3. Plannthin, Mikkel (August 19, 2017). Britain's Victory, Denmark's Freedom: Danish Volunteers in Allied Air Forces During the Second World War. United Kingdom: Fonthill Media. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  4. Boehm, H. (1981). "In Memoriam" (PDF). FITA: Bulletin Officiel of the International Archery Federation30-31-32: 4–5. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  5. Sawyer, J. S. (1971). "RETIREMENT OF DR R. FRITH, O.B.E.". The Meteorological Magazine. 100 (1184). checkY
  6. "METEOROLOGICAL BRANCH" (PDF). Supplement to the London Gazette: 4882. 18 September 1951. Question? reliable as a primary source, but if it used it should have in-text attribution. Really this source is unnecessary as the second source above states everything here.
  7. Barker, Philip (5 March 2021). "Inger Frith blazed a trail for women in sports governance". Inside the Games. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  8. Rhode, Robert J. (1981). History of the Federation International De Tir A L Arc (PDF). I. Mahomet, ILL U.S.A. p. 326. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  9. Olympic Encyclopedia April 1985 Gymnastics and Archery. Comite International Olympique. 1985. pp. 50–56. Retrieved 17 September 2021. checkY
  10. "Mrs. Inger Frith" (PDF). Olympic Review. 1971. Retrieved 17 September 2021. ☒N there is still insufficient bibliographic information to meet WP:V
  11. "Deaths: Frith, Inger Kristine Frith". The Times. October 26, 1981. p. 22. Question? reliable as a primary source, but again requiring in-text attribution, as in "According to the death notice". Death notices are what someone's family what published, not necessarily the truth. The information cited here is covered in other sources above.
  12. General note - more bibliographic information needs to be added to nearly all of the sources, particularly author (if available) and date of publication, but also publisher and location. If links break there is insufficient detail to meet WP:V and so the broken source and whatever is cited to it may be removed.
  • Other problems:
  1. Inger Kristine Pragholm-Frith (23 January 1909 – 24 October 1981) The hyphenated surname Pragholm-Frith is not in any of the sources.
  2. Inger Kristine Pragholm was born in Denmark on 23 January 1909. The cited source does not state she was born in Denmark, just that she was Danish and in 1940 she left Denmark for Paris.
  3. After reaching South Africa she joined the South African Air Force. The cited source source makes no mention of the South African Air Force.
  4. The paragraph with the above sentence is very clunky and awkward to read, it requires copyediting.
  5. Capt. Inger Kristine Frith (nee Pragholm) is recorded as being born on 23 January 1909, and having served (W/265733) in the South African Air Force (SAAF) from 23 October 1941 to 21 July 1945 as a meteorologist/forecaster. Extremely awkward, and leading with Captain gives the impression that she was subsequently demoted to Second Lieutenant in the following paragraph.
  6. She and her husband eventually settled in Crowthorne. Sticks out like a sore thumb, maybe move it into the later life section, as in "died in Crowthorne where she and Ronald had established their home."
  7. In 1985, she was credited as "the main architect of archery's reintroduction to the Olympic programme in 1972." This quote needs in-text attribution.
  • It's getting closer, with some of the issues raised in the first review have still not been resolved, and care needs to taken to ensure the correct source is used to cite certain pieces of information. I have struck ALT0 because we have now clarified that she was not "a high ranked pilot during World War II". Cavalryman (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC).
I have also struck my first ALT1 as she did not serve in the RAF but instead served in the SAAF, so have added ALT2, with no preference between it and ALT3. Cavalryman (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 4[edit]

The Epic Split

  • ... that Belgian actor Jean-Claude Van Damme has performed a gymnastic split between two backwards moving trucks in a commercial? [1]
    • 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)

Improved to Good Article status by PhotographyEdits (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC).


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - "has performed", or "performed"? Clarify who Jean-Claude Van Damme is, perhaps?
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I haven't done this before and I'd like someone to check my working! Turini2 (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The target article should be in bold font in the hook; I’ve fixed that. Schwede66 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: @Turini2: Seems okay this way? PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Turini2 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/van-damme-does-splits-between-656296/

Ryan Johnson (footballer, born 1996)

  • ... that Ryan Johnson became Stevenage's youngest player in the club's English Football League history in May 2014, debuting at 17 years and 215 days old? Source: "He joined Stevenage in 2013 and was their youngest ever debutant at 17-years and 215 days" (link)

Improved to Good Article status by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC).

  • I feel like the hook could be greatly improved if the age was included, such as "that Ryan Johnson is Stevenage's youngest player in the club's English Football League history, debuting at 17?" A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure okay.EchetusXe 22:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I've added new sources to the article and changed the hook with the new information added.EchetusXe 13:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - link is broken
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Approval pending citation of hook (I only see it mentioned in Ryan_Johnson_(footballer,_born_1996)#Stevenage, where the fact was retrieved in 2014). Wayback machine did not return live link of source either. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 7[edit]

Delphian Club

  • ... that the Delphian Club designated John Neal as Magister Facetiarum of the Office of the Joke Master General? Source: Pages 77–78 of The Life and Works of John Neal says "After the first year, Neal is, of course, regularly designated by his 'clubicular' name of Jehu O'Cataract. He also acquired several offices. On December 20, 1817, the Club voted 'That there shall be, in the Delphian Club, an office to be called the office of Joke Master General, or Magister Facetiarum.... Jehu O'Cataract was appointed to fill said office."

Created by Dugan Murphy (talk). Self-nominated at 19:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - I have to AGF on this because, despite my access to a university library, I don't have access to the relevant thesis. Unsurprisingly, a Google search for "Magister Facetiarum" does not turn anything useful up.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg A lovely read—thank you. Issues flagged above should be fairly easy to address, I think. This should be a quirky if the promoter can manage it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Musca depicta

Detail from a Clara Peeters painting
Detail from a Clara Peeters painting
  • ... that many 15th-16th century European paintings included a conspicuous depiction of a common fly (example pictured)? [1][2]
    • 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 Lembit Staan (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Image discussion
  • P.S. There are quite a few famous paintings with musca depicta in Commons. Unfortunately IMO they are not suited for DYK, because the fly will not be prominently visible by a Wikipedia reader. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I looked through all of the works in that Commons category, found the one with the clearest, most detailed depiction of a fly, and uploaded a crop of just the fly. I added a gallery to the article, including the full image. DYK has always allowed cropped images as long as either it or the full image appears in the article. However, I just noticed that the date of the painting is 1607, just barely into the 17th century, so I noted that in the (pictured). If this doesn't work, we could find one in the desired time period. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It seems it is the best musca depicta we have in commons. I don't think the century is critical and no need to clutter the text mentioning it. The image does not contradict the text: it was vogue in 15th-16th, but there is no claim that they vanished completely later. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • By the way, can you create an image overlaying the magnified fly onto the lower left corner of the full image? It will not suit the DYK, because the fly will still be small, but it will be handy for the article, to demonstrate the scrupulous mastery. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, I removed "early 17th century" from the (pictured). I see that you added the detail image to the page. That may be the best, rather than an inset. BTW, it's not "magnified", as such. I merely cropped the original-size image without otherwise altering it. (I'm collapsing this discussion to avoid delays in reviewing, because sometimes reviewers avoid nominations which have any existing discussion.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Looking. Needs some work on prose, will comment on criteria after am happy with that. Interesting page for sure, but dont like the word "conspicuous" in the hook..prominent? Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I consulted the dictionary for ythese two words and I se that conspicuous is the correct word choice in this context. Uses by the source, by the way.Lembit Staan (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Encyclopedia of Insects, p. 242
  2. ^ Lubomír Konečný, "Catching an Absent Fly" In: Albrecht Dürer. The Feast of the Rose Garlands, 1506-2006, 2006, ISBN 8070353325

Articles created/expanded on September 8[edit]

Tarmac scam

  • ... that in a typical tarmac scam, a conman posing as a builder knocks on your door and claims he can pave your driveway cheaply with some asphalt left over from another job? Mandelstam "they would tell some story...[that] they had a quantity of material over, which they could use to tarmac the victim's drives", Shropshire Council/Bomere Heath Parish Council, there are cold-callers in Shropshire this morning trying it on with a ‘tarmac’ scam...They will knock the door and quite plausibly tell you that they have tarmac leftover from a job nearby that they can let you have before it goes off, Construction News

Created by Blythwood (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Blythwood: Article is new enough (created 8 September), long enough (1911 characters), and within policy (0% match with earwig!). The hook mostly looks fine, and is supported with references, but I think 'builder' needs to be 'conman' or 'conman posing as a builder', and 'offering' needs to be 'claiming to offer', in order to be accurate. QPQ is done. If you can propose an ALT hook, then I think this otherwise good to go. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mike Peel, thanks! I've made your first change. The second I find a bit awkward phrasing: the conman is offering to pave your drive, even if it's not an honest offer! So I've gone with "claims he can" if that works for you? Blythwood (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Blythwood: Thanks for the changes. It's raised two new issues, though. The first is that ideally, you would propose an "ALT1" hook rather than modifying the original one, since rewriting the original one makes my comments see misplaced to anyone else reading this discussion (not a biggie, it's just a social convention). The second is that you now say 'he', I think that might be better as 'they' to be more gender-neutral. Although 'conman' is probably also problematic in that case! I should have realised this when I suggested it, sorry: perhaps 'crook' would be a gender-neutral word? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, these are fair points (although I should stress that every case reported in the article seems to have involved a male ringleader). I think what I'm going to do is go have a rest and think about a better hook. Will ping at that point. Blythwood (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Squares (crisps)

A packet of Squares
A packet of Squares
  • ... that Richard Osman wrote that Squares (pictured) were invented because scientists were concerned that children weren't hurting the roofs of their mouths as often as they should be?
    • ALT1:... that Squares (pictured) were marketed with the slogan "more of a crunch than a crisp"?
    • ALT2:... that before they were transferred to Walkers in 1989, Squares (pictured) were known as Square Crisps?
    • ALT3:... that the comedian Lenny Henry featured in many Squares (pictured) adverts during the 1980s?

Created by Sahaib3005 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC).

Sermon on the Mound

  • Comment: This is my first attempt at DYK - please be patient! :-)

Improved to Good Article status by Doric Loon (talk). Self-nominated at 07:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting speech and reception, fine GA on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Welcome to DYK! I think that in hook and article, we need to clarify that the title is a nickname. Quotation marks, as in one of the headlines, might be the easiest way. Both hooks are correct, but I believe it would be more "hooky" saying that she claimed it was her speech with the most copy requests. Would you like to try, Doric Loon? - In the article, I tried to fix a link to ref Raban, please check, but couldn't find ref Torrence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your kind words. Thanks also for correcting the Raban error. The Torrence article seems to have been taken off-line, but it was originally a print source, so it should still be citable. I have simply deleted the URL. Good idea about the hook. How about: ALT2:... that Margaret Thatcher's office received more requests from around the world for the text of the "Sermon on the Mound" than for any other speech? --Doric Loon (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Off the verandah

A photo (Plate I) from Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), showing the native village as well as Malinowski's tent.
A photo (Plate I) from Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), showing the native village as well as Malinowski's tent.

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC).


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - ALT0 looks good, can't find support for one of the first in ALT1 although I might just be missing it
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg ALT0 is good to go! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, For "one of the first", see the cites in the main article (here I indeed focused on the tent). Check for example [36]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Piotrus! Since that means ALT1 could run also, I should say that the image (while fascinating) isn't all that clear at main page size. ALT0 is still good to go, and ALT1 is good to go without the image. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Ezlev, User:Ixocactus just extracted a bunch more images, see commons:Category:Argonauts of the western Pacific. Anything jumps out to you as possibly better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
None of the clearer ones seem as closely connected to the subject as Plate 1 – I'm just not sure that one is clear enough. Maybe it's fine and I'm being too picky, or maybe it could be edited for more clarity? Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Let's get another set of eyes on the image for ALT1, please. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The image either has some very strange compression or it has way too much contrast/brightness applied, because that's patently not how the images would look like even back then. I mean, it's legible, but the quality is egregious. I'll take a better-quality image and we'll see if it still works. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
UPD: we'll have to deal with the images we have. Mine wasn't much better, unfortunately. Oops. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki, Ezlev: while I can see the tent in the image, even in the thumb, I am fine if the image doesn't run. It's relevant but not super relevant - a picture of the Malinowski on the verandah would be priceless, but I am not sure one exists... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Salu (cloth)

  • ... that there was a Salu cloth that was distinguished by its red color? [Source]: 819 
    • ALT1:... that there used to be a cloth that was distinguished by red color? [Source]: 819 

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 05:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

Saraya Awliya al-Dam

Created/expanded by Dunutubble (talk). Self-nominated at 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 9[edit]

Nicolas Mahler

Nicolas Mahler in 2014
Nicolas Mahler in 2014
  • Reviewed: to come
  • Comment: --I guess the image should be cropped to more face, even if his characters have no eyes, ears and mouth. Do you want that for a hook? The article spent a day in Draft space, just to complete the story.

Created by LouisAlain (talk), Grimes2 (talk), and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment: The jury statement was made originally for the Max & Moritz Prize 2006. Preis der Literaturhäuser: "... so hieß es in der Begründung für den Max und Moritz-Preis 2006" Source: [40] Grimes2 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, I'd prefer to drop the whole clause anyway, but how then to say it's the translation of a quote? Better hook ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I think, ALT0 is good with an replacement of the prize (+ other source in article). Grimes2 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT0a ... that cartoonist Nicolas Mahler (pictured) adapted novels such as The Man Without Qualities into graphic novels, "with minimalist drawings and maximal humour" according to a jury? Grimes2 (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the corrections and the ALT, and I took the link to the jury to the original without writing another ALT. I am less happy with two aspects of ALT0. Saying "cartoonist" is sort of redundant to the graphic novels, and might turn away readers who don't want to read about cartoonists, - boxing too early. Also, for those who know a bit I thought Vienna and the novel make good company, and for others, Vienna gives them a place where to put him (which I prefer to saying "Austrian"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Graphic novel is a less known term, cartoonist is better. We don't want to lead the reader on the wrong track. Want to stress, that "marginal" is not the correct quotation, it is "maximal". This was cited by the Preis der Literaturhäuser source wrongly. Grimes2 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
O dear, perhaps we better think of a hook without the problematic quote?
ALT1: ... that cartoonist Nicolas Mahler from Vienna (pictured) adapted novels such as Musil's The Man Without Qualities into graphic novels? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that "Nicolas Mahler's figures have no eyes, no ears, no mouths – but they undoubtedly have character" according to a comic award jury? Grimes2 (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Where would pictured go? Now I adopted your "caartoonist" and you have it in the end, - figures could be sculptures ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT2a ... that cartoonist "Nicolas Mahler's figures have no eyes, no ears, no mouths – but they undoubtedly have character" according to a comic award jury? Grimes2 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Can't place "pictured" in quote. That's a problem. The hook can be used only without picture. Maybe the better translation is instead "figures" "characters"? Grimes2 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    ALT2b ... that a comic award jury wrote about the characters of Nicolas Mahler (pictured) that they "have no eyes, no ears, no mouths – but they undoubtedly have character"?
    "with "character" instead of figure, it becomes a pun. I had pondered that hook but found that the graphic novels adapted from literature were more unique to Mahler. The jury statement would have worked for Martin Perscheid just the same, but the quote about him was much more pungent, remember?
I like ALT2b. Grimes2 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 10[edit]

Game On (The West Wing episode)

Converted from a redirect by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 22:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC).

Sharri MacDonald

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 04:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

Sharp PC-7000

Sharp PC-7000
Sharp PC-7000
  • ... that the Sharp PC-7000 (pictured), compared in shape to a toaster, was manufactured in a factory that also produced Sharp's microwave ovens? Source: "1988 also marked the beginning of U.S. production of Sharp's PC-7000 series of IBM-compatible portable computers at the company's TV/microwave oven manufacturing facility in Memphis." (Ovechka 1989, p. 26.)
    • ALT1:... that Sharp's portable PC-7000 (pictured) had an optional thermal printer that could be attached to the computer, adding 11 lb (5.0 kg) to its 19 lb (8.6 kg) weight? Source: "The optional CE-700P printer, at $399 and weighing just over 11 pounds, attaches to the PC-7000 to provide a portable office system." (Mathur 1986, p. 85.)

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 20:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

John Lewis (Shawnee leader)

John Lewis
John Lewis
  • ... that Shawnee leader John Lewis (pictured) met with U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe to promote Shawnee land rights in Ohio? Source: Edmunds, R. David (2017). "A Patriot Defamed: Captain Lewis, Shawnee Chief". In Warren, Stephen (ed.). The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma: Resilience Through Adversity. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 15–42.
  • Comment: submitting this for DYK on October 5, when Tecumseh will appear as TFA

Created by Kevin1776 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Important article on Shawnee leader finally turning red links on "Captain John Lewis" blue. Highlights why Lewis promoted accommodation with the U.S. – even supporting the Americans in the War of 1812 (and opposing Tecumseh who led Indians fighting for the British) – then advocated westward relocation in the final years of his life. Article is brand new, long, with inline citations, written in a neutral tone, no apparent copyright issues, hook is elaborated on with citations in the article, most images are from well known pre-1850 sources (plus image originating from Flickr whose license issues were sorted out on Commons in 2017). Only the QPQ is missing from a general DYK review point of view.
  • Regarding the content of the hook: Seems OK. Slight nit is that John Lewis was part of a delegation that met with Jefferson in 1802, the year before Ohio statehood. The hook definitely grabbed my attention so in principle I think it's OK to keep. (Though anyone who reads a lot about U.S. Indian affairs in the 1800s might think... OK, there were a lot of Native American leaders who technically "met with" Presidents, Secretaries of War, etc. as part of large delegations, with varying levels of involvement and ultimately very little "success". Also, "promoting land rights" sounds a little off and I wonder if it's possible to tweak?)
  • Possible alternative: The sentence within the article that jumps out the most is: "Although Tecumseh is popularly associated with Shawnee resistance to the United States, more Shawnees served in Harrison's army at the Battle of the Thames than alongside Tecumseh."[17] This is also why this article has been proposed for DYK on October 5. So why not call this out more explicitly? (Otherwise, a lot of readers will gloss over and miss the point.) Would it be possible to construct a hook highlighting John Lewis's leadership of Shawnee fighters serving under William Henry Harrison's army...technically fighting against Tecumseh in the War of 1812, etc.?
  • Other suggestions for the article (beyond DYK): How did Quatawapea get the name John Lewis? And on what basis does Edmunds draw a different conclusion from Sugden re: Lewis's initial support for the Shawnee Prophet?
  • Anyway was very excited to read this article. I am very new to DYK so technically don't even need the QPQ credit yet myself but was just blown away to see this. Thanks for your hard work in pulling it together. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I like your idea of a Tecumseh-related hook. Do you want to take a pass at writing it? Kevin1776 (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 11[edit]

Karl-Heinz Petzinka

Stadttor Düsseldorf
Stadttor Düsseldorf
  • Reviewed: to come

Created by LouisAlain (talk), Grimes2 (talk), and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

André Kisase Ngandu

  • Reviewed: TBD

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 21:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

Thomas Foxcroft (slave trader)

  • ... that Thomas Foxcroft sold 307 people for £9858?
    Gomer Williams on page 605-606 says "In 1784, the Bloom, Robert Bostock, master, carried 307 slaves from the Windward Coast of Africa to the West Indies, on account of Messrs. Thomas Foxcroft & Co.," and "Sale of 307 slaves... £9858"
  • ALT1 ... that in 1784, Thomas Foxcroft sold 307 people for £9858, which is equivalent to £1,214,933 in 2019 money?
    Source is the same as ALT0. For the money conversion I used WP inbuilt conversion. The code is reproduced as follows which can be checked when editing....equivalent to £1,214,933 in 2019

Created by Desertarun (talk). Self-nominated at 18:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

Natsuko Takahashi

Source: Anime News Network interview
  • Reviewed: Exempt
  • Comment: I re-wrote this hook multiple times, but it may still need further improvement.

Created by Link20XX (talk). Self-nominated at 04:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC).


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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - How about:
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg @Link20XX: Good work on this one. I just had a suggestion for the hook wording, which I posted above. Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Your wording is fine by me. Link20XX (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Mondeghili

A plate of mondeghili
A plate of mondeghili
  • ... that the mondeghili (pictured) spread during the Spanish domination in the Duchy of Milan? Source: "...e al tempo stesso principale eredità culinaria degli Spagnoli. Furono loro a diffonderli nel secolo e mezzo in cui dominarono la città, tra il 1535 e il 1706:" ([41])

Created by Alessandro57 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment only Things I learned about the 16th century today. This dish "was in fact born from the need not to waste leftovers from the abundant holiday dinners and lunches." Victuallers (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I checked, and this sentence is unsourced. I removed it, since it is unlikely that in the 16th century the Lombards were so rich that they could often afford beef. Alex2006 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing that. It still says "born from the need not to waste leftovers cuts of beef". The word "born" is journalist talk and not needed here. Victuallers (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I substituted "was born" with "resulted". Is it ok? Please feel free to copyedit the article, which is partly a translation from an Italian article with Italian sources and has been translated by an Italian speaking guy. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; as "mondeghili" is not a proper noun, I have lowercased it in the proposed hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Hallo @BlueMoonset: this article has been copyedited a couple of days ago. What else needs to be done? Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Julian Filipowicz

Filipowicz in 1933
Filipowicz in 1933

Created by SuperSkaterDude45 (talk). Nominated by A. C. Santacruz (talk) at 09:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC).

  • 'In progress QPQ done, neutral, length is fine, its a B quality article with lots of good refs. Victuallers (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 12[edit]

Komm, Herr, segne uns

  • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Science Fiction Awards Database

Created by Olivaw-Daneel (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

IBM Palm Top PC 110

IBM Palm Top PC 110
IBM Palm Top PC 110
  • ... that IBM originally designed the Palm Top PC 110 (pictured) to be closer in shape to a VHS but narrowed it when testers kept using their thumbs to type? Source: "Tetsuya Kaku, who worked on the Palm Top design, said IBM Japan engineers at the Yamato laboratory first conceived of a computer measuring about the same size as a VHS tape. But the final Palm Top is more box-shaped, slightly thicker than the original prototype. One reason is that many people type on a small computer with their thumbs, grasping the sides of the system and thumbing in the characters, Kaku said" [7].
    • ALT1:... that IBM's Palm Top PC 110 (pictured) could be turned into a handset? Source: "Engineers from IBM Japan, Hoshiden Electric and Ricoh jointly developed a flip-out phone jack, called the Winjack, that Kaku said doesn't take up space inside the system. If a phone line is placed in the Winjack, a person can grab the Palm Top in his hand, speak into the microphone and listen to the built-in speakers" [7].

Improved to Good Article status by DigitalIceAge (talk) and PhotographyEdits (talk). Nominated by DigitalIceAge (talk) at 11:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

Ivo Herenčić

Improved to Good Article status by OakMapping (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC).

Bob Jahnke

Robert Jahnke 2018
Robert Jahnke 2018
  • ... that Bob Jahnke (pictured) started the first Māori visual arts degree programme in New Zealand in 1991? Source: In 1991 under Jahnke's leadership Massey University in Palmerston North started Toioho ki Āpiti an arts programme offering the first bachelor of Māori visual arts New Zealand. "Robert Jahnke". Auckland Art Gallery. Retrieved 2021-09-12. "Researchers and scholars elected to Academy". Royal Society Te Apārangi. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

Created by Pakoire (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Thanks for writing this article; I enjoyed reading it. The article is new enough, neutral, long enough and correctly sourced. Hook fact is sourced in article. The picture is CC4.0 and looks good, meets criteria. No QPQ is needed, as this is editor's fourth DYK. However, there is a problem of too close paraphrasing with the Maori tv article. Earwig gives it a 40% match. For example, the sentence "A former member of Te Waka Toi..." is verbatim from the article. It needs a little work to reduce the overlap; shouldn't be hard to fix. Regarding the wording of the hook, I like it, but I think it should have the word "programme" after "degree" to clarify that he started a whole program. Also, his role is more strongly asserted in the hook than in the article. Maybe make it stronger in the article? It could be made more clear that he was really the driving force. Finally, this is a small thing, but under the career section, it would be good to include his title at Massey, which is mentioned in the lede, and if you know it, the date he started teaching there. Would also love to see article include more about his own artwork, but not necessary for the DYK. PMCH2 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the feedback. I have added research and expanded the article including addressing your points about: the Māori TV article; strengthening the role of Jahnke in the creation of the degree (I ended up adding the other people involved); added his role; and expanded about his artwork. I have added the word 'programme' into the hook. (FYI RE: QPQ I have one other pending DYK so one will be 4 and one will be 5 depending on review process.) Pakoire (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 13[edit]

Louisville National Medical College

Created/expanded by Charliestalnaker (talk). Self-nominated at 21:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Proseminar in Homophile Studies

Crompton in 1983
Crompton in 1983
  • ... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, offered in 1970 by Louis Crompton (pictured) at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, was one of the first university courses about homosexuality? Source: "I want to reproduce a shortened version of an archival essay written by Louis Crompton, a pioneer in the field of gay and lesbian studies. The course about which he writes was among the two or three "firsts" in the United States" - McNaron cite, pp 167-168
  • Comment: Open to other hooks!

Improved to Good Article status by Urve (talk). Self-nominated at 13:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Shinjuku riot

  • ... that in 1968, anti-Vietnam War protesters occupied Shinjuku Station, causing US$18 million in financial losses? Source: Andrews, William (15 August 2016). Dissenting Japan: A History of Japanese Radicalism and Counterculture from 1945 to Fukushima. Hurst. ISBN 978-1-84904-919-1. p. 113
  • Reviewed: QPQ pending

Improved to Good Article status by Roniius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY

QPQ: Red XN - Has not been completed.
Overall: Symbol question.svg I'm not sure whether USD is the best option for currency in the hook, as that seems to me a little US-centric for a protest happening in Japan about something else that was happening in Vietnam, but if that's what's given in the hook's source, I suppose it's not a big deal. Good to go pending QPQ completion. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 14[edit]

SpaceX Starship

Tile inspection on Starship
Tile inspection on Starship
  • ... that the flaps in the Starship spacecraft do not generate lift like wings, but they induce drag and control the spacecraft's descent? Source: "The vehicle therefore uses four steel landing flaps, positioned near the front and rear of the vehicle, to control its descent. This is much like a skydiver uses their arms and legs to control a free-fall. 'It's quite different from anything else ... we're doing a controlled fall,' Elon Musk said during a Starship update in 2019. 'You're trying to create drag rather than lift - it's really the opposite of an aircraft.'" [44]
    • ALT1:... that launch tower's arms nicknamed Mechazilla are designed to catch and recover the Super Heavy booster of SpaceX's Starship system? Source 1: "[...] SpaceX’s first custom-built ‘launch tower’ is a sort of backbone or anchor point for several massive, mechanical arms that will accomplish the actual tasks of servicing – and, perhaps, catching – Starships and Super Heavy boosters." [45] Source 2: "One month after SpaceX stacked Starship’s South Texas ‘launch tower’ to its full height, the company has installed the first arm on what amounts to the backbone of 'Mechazilla.'" [46]
    • ALT2: ... that SpaceX's Starship rocket has twice the lift capacity of the Saturn V? If Starship then launched as an expendable, payload would be ~250 tons. What isn’t obvious from this chart is that Starship/Super Heavy is much denser than Saturn V. [47]

Improved to Good Article status by CactiStaccingCrane (talk). Self-nominated at 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The hooks look interesting enough, though I will suggest slight paraphrasing for each.
    • ALT3: ... that the flaps of SpaceX's Starship spacecraft do not generate lift but instead induce drag to control the spacecraft's descent
    • ALT1b: ... that the design of launch towers' arms allows them to "catch" and recover (retrieve?) the Super Heavy booster of SpaceX's Starship system? 
No problems for ATL2.
Rectify these. Will leave to the promoters to decide which of the hooks are better.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Alt1 is a completely new design that has never been tested in any way and that is likely to change a lot in the future based on test results. I would avoid that for now. --mfb (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


Hivernage

A hivernage camp at Fréjus
A hivernage camp at Fréjus

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 11:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 15[edit]

Schneiderman v. United States

Created by Extraordinary Writ (talk). Self-nominated at 22:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

Schneider's marmoset, List of primates described in the 2020s

Female Schneider's marmoset
Female Schneider's marmoset

Created by Jackhynes (talk). Self-nominated at 12:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 16[edit]

Holothuria glaberrima

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

International sanctions during apartheid

Created by NoonIcarus (talk). Self-nominated at 02:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Hi and thanks for your contribution. However, this article was created with 12 kB of prose from other articles. Therefore, it is ineligible per supplementary guideline A5, If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, I wasn't aware that that was an obstacle if the article was recently started. Many thanks for letting me know regardless! NoonIcarus (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries at all! I first became aware of this rule on one of my own DYK nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Peruna (patent medicine). We are all learning here-- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Magic Desk

  • ... that in Magic Desk I, the icons within the main screen for the phone, the calculator, the spreadsheet, and the Rolodex do nothing? Source: "You can point at the phone, Rolodex, calculator or spreadsheet and nothing happens. Commodore presumably included this frustrating feature to whet your appetite for future Magic Desk software" (Milewski 1984, p. 62).
    • ALT1:... that Commodore scrapped succeeding entries of Magic Desk that would have included speech synthesis? Source: ("After Feagans easily integrated voice capability with Magic Desk, the marketing team decided it would be a good addition to the TED computer, which they would call the 364. 'That was basically just a 264 with a numeric keypad and a Magic Voice speech synthesis built in' ... Commodore had shown multiple flavors of the 264 at CES and decided to cancel the Magic Desk and Logo versions. Instead, it would focus on the most popular versions: one with 64 kilobytes of memory and one with only 16 kilobytes" (Bagnall 2010, p. 512).

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 02:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

Zenith Eazy PC

  • ... that one computer reviewer considered the optional $399 expansion module for the Zenith Eazy PC necessary for it to be useful at all? Source: "For a serial port you'll need Zenith's $399 memory/modem/serial port add-on module" (Perdue 1987, p. 76); "Add the memory/modem/serial port module that we consider a requirement, and you've got a list price for a dual-floppy machine of just under $1,600" (p. 80).
    • ALT1:... that Zenith equipped the floppy-only models of the Eazy PC with power supplies too weak to accommodate an aftermarket hard drive? Source: "The power supply delievered with Models 1 and 2 is not beefy enough to support a hard disk" (Hummel 1987, p. 35.).

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 02:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

Anton Josef Reiss

  • Reviewed: to come

Moved to mainspace by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Catharine Brant

Created by NJInce (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 09:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Space Encounters

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 14:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

Yiku sitian

Moved to mainspace by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 11:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

An Informal History of the Hugos

  • Comment: This is my first DYK nom.

Created by Olivaw-Daneel (talk). Self-nominated at 09:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

Fundadores de São Paulo

The monument in 2018
The monument in 2018
  • ... that the Fundadores de São Paulo monument (pictured) was inaugurated on 25 January 1963, the anniversary date of the city's founding? Source: [48] (not currently available, but archived)

Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 21:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svgArticle is new enough and long enough. What makes sources #1 and #3 a WP:RS? Number #2 does not mention Villa Mariana and #3 does not mention the locations. The paragraph about the construction is a bit too similar to the source for my liking. #4 should be reformatted; as the citation is written it seems like it's citing a Wikimedia Commons URL rather than the plaque. The infobox data are unsourced. If the article is a translation from ptWikipedia it needs attribution. ALT1 seems more interesting, both are supported by the article. QPQ still needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the review! #1 was monumentos.art.br, a big database of repositories that is sadly no longer online - I think this is easily a reliable source though, even archived. #3 is more arguable, but I'd think of it like a local newspaper - the situation with reporting is different in Brazil compared to what you might find in the the US or Europe. #4 I've reformatted - this was actually the one I thought a reviewer would object to most. ;-) Happy to reformat it more if needed. It was #1 for Villa Mariana and #2 for the rest - now clarified. Construction paragraph has been rewritten. Infobox data normally seems to be unsourced here (it sadly seems normal - I personally prefer including references in them.) All info in it is mentioned and referenced in the article text anyway. I've also added the appropriate references to the Wikidata item, in case you preferred the automatic infobox (most of it was already referenced there though. I'm not sure how to provide attribution to ptwiki - any pointers? About half of it is newly written anyway (compare the pt version to the en version). I'll do the QPQ shortly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • QPQ is now done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I would probably dump the infobox completely if it can't be sourced. Regarding #3, does that mean it's the equivalent of a newspaper? That is, editorial team, journalists and all? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I can put inline refs in the infobox if you'd prefer? Everything in it is sourced, it's just that the refs are in the article body, and not duplicated there (same as for the intro). #3 - I was meaning in terms of information circulation, not editorial team/journalists - but I'm not sure that even local newspapers in the UK have those nowadays anyway... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, UK newspapers very much have a reputation for unreliability so I wouldn't use them as an example of a reliable source. If the infobox data can be sourced from the other sources, adding references would indeed be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I've added references to the infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Japan and the Holocaust

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Not sure this hook works, if it had no connection whatsoever no article could be written about it. Phrasing in the article is to be clearer, but I expect there are better hooks available. (t · c) buidhe 14:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to oppose the hook as I think it's misleading. It's your nomination, so please find a better hook. (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Contradicted by the article which describes various types of peripheral involvement in "During World War II" section. The article lead states correctly: "did not actively participate in The Holocaust". But I don't see how that's hook worthy, since it does not distinguish Japan from pretty much any country outside of Europe. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Since Japan was part of the Axis, I think the hook is quite interesting. Not that I mind the other wording, see ALT1 below; anyway, given globalization, virtually any significant country had peripheral involvement in this. Frankly, I prefer the main to ALT1, since it is more clear, but I don't have strong feelings here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here

ALT1: ... that although Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany were allies during World War II, Japan did not actively participate in The Holocaust? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

People in Space

  • Reviewed: I have less that 5 submitted DYKs, so not required.
  • Comment: If able to be posted during the Inspiration4 mission, and before Shenzhou 12 lands then the primary hook can be used. Otherwise, ALT1 will be required.

Created by JoltColaOfEvil (talk). Self-nominated at 00:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Hi! JoltColaOfEvil, I do not think the article is ready for DYK. You have mentioned wrong name in the template People in Space. Kindly resolve the Notability issue of the subject. And you should provide a reference to the hook also. Thanks RV (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    @JoltColaOfEvil: In addition to the notability issue, the article is also too short at 539 bytes of prose. DYK requires a minimum of 1,500 characters (see WP:DYKCN), so it will have to be expanded considerably to qualify. On the plus side, as you work on expanding it you may find more sources to satisfy notability. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I have provided further references, and expanded the text. Is this sufficient? JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment article is at 929 prose characters, short of the requirement of 1500. Also, this article would probably pass notability guidelines fine if it were called "List of people in space". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Could we just do that then, move to "List of people in Space"? JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Possibly—there still would be notability questions, given the multitude of other lists on space travellers. I would recommend finding more reliable secondary sources first. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
A lot of records are collected at List of spaceflight records. I left a note at its talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
JoltColaOfEvil, if you do, it has to be "space" (lower case) as it’s not a proper noun; Wikipedia uses sentence case. Schwede66 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
JoltColaOfEvil, There are no apparent attempts to improve the article. It's acceptable; take your time. However, you risk losing your chance of DYK approval. Thanks RV (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Other than completing the suggested move to "List of people in space" above, I don't have anything else to contribute. If that's insufficient, then I guess that's it. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 17[edit]

Twin Pagodas (Suzhou)

Twin Pagodas of Suzhou
Twin Pagodas of Suzhou
  • ... that the Twin Pagodas of Suzhou (pictured) have been compared to two ink brushes? According to an intellectual joke ... the Twin Pagodas represented brushes, but without an inkstone. The people interpreted the square black Wenchang Tower as such an inkstone... Kögel, Eduard (2015). The Grand Documentation: Ernst Boerschmann and Chinese Religious Architecture. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. pp. 191–193. ISBN 9783110401349.
    • ALT1:... that only the Twin Pagodas (pictured) remain of the Tang-era Buddhist temple in Suzhou? Behind [the pagodas] stone remains - columns, plinths and decapitated statues - mark the site of the Tang-dynasty temple which existed here until it was burned down in 1860 Courtauld, Caroline; Holdsworth, May (1988). Nanjing, Wuxi, Suzhou and Jiangsu Province : land of lakes and classical gardens. Lincolnwood, Ill., U.S.A. : Passport Books. p. 139.

Created by Alaexis (talk). Self-nominated at 14:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

.

Anoscopus albifrons

Created by AryKun (talk). Self-nominated at 11:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

Forbes Log

  • ... that the Forbes Log sent speed measurements remotely to the gunnery calculators used by the Royal Navy? Source: Brooks, page 158 (and many other pages)

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hi Maury Markowitz, review follows: article created 17 September; article exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't pick up any overly close paraphrasing form the two sources accessible online; a couple of comments:
  • "generally to aid the use of the dumaresq as well as battle reporting" is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text (and so is uncited)
  • I think a little more interest can be added to the hook if the year is stated, as it'll be earlier than many expect
I don't have anything directly linking him to the log but I think the inventor is probably George Forbes (1849-1936), he was an electrical engineer and professor at at college in Glasgow. He "worked with the Admiralty from 1903-1906, developing a gunsight that was still in use at the beginning of the Second World War" - Dumelow (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 18[edit]

Ottoman music

  • Comment: I'm below 5 DYK credits, so QPQ shouldn't be necessary.

5x expanded by Uness232 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

Richardson Island

  • ... that Richardson Island was the subject of an "annexation war" between two cities in the 1950s? Source:
    "Corte Madera 'Peace Feeler' Next Step In Annexation War". Daily Independent Journal. San Rafael, California. 1950-08-16. p. 1.
    "Corte Madera OKs One Annexation, Rejects 4 Others". Daily Independent Journal. San Rafael, California. 1950-10-10. p. 1.

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 22:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Waiting on QPQ. Also, article prose was expanded from 424 B to 1941 B, which isn't *quite* a 5x expansion (4.5)-- could about 200 B of prose be added? Hook seems to be verified, but based on what I'm reading I wonder whether it might be more accurate to say "was involved in an "annexation war"". Article is cited to reliable sources and no evident copyvio. Hook is interesting and cited in article. Also, the article, while it is >1500 B is still classified as a stub, which for DYK purposes it shouldn't be. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Have expanded from the sources a bit (apologies for the error, I was going on word count rather than byte count). I am fine with either hook -- will return with QPQ shortly. jp×g 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Iyopawa Island

  • ... that Iyopawa Island's golf course, despite being on an island, has no water hazards? Source: "You won't find water hazards in the middle of this lake". Battle Creek Enquirer. Battle Creek, Michigan. 1996-09-01. p. 31. "Iyopawa Island Golf Course". Coldwater Country. Retrieved 2021-09-18.

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 21:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Question? According to the DYKcheck tool, the article isn't quite 5x expanded: old version was 398 characters, and current version is 1909 characters, which is short of the 1990 characters needed for a 5x expansion. Please can you add a bit more text, so that's it's at least 1990 characters long? Once that's fixed, and QPQ is done, will do a full review. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Horselunges Manor

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Article is long enough and new enough. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting. QPQ needs to be done. Please let me know when you have done QPQ and this will be all set. Thriley (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Very good! Looks ready to go then. Thriley (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

When Marnie Was There (novel)

  • ... that author Joan G. Robinson felt that through writing the novel When Marnie Was There, she "faced the truth and found understanding" about her emotionally distant mother? "I am Anna of course, and Marnie is my mother. My mother was always un-get-atable. Without meaning to, she always let me down. I found this extremely difficult to forgive, for without realising parents are in the same boat as yourself, that they are children, too, you can’t forgive them for being frail and human. But until you learn to forgive, you yourself are crippled, can’t begin to grow up. Through writing Marnie I faced the truth and found understanding. It made things a lot better." Source: Carter, Hannah (September 29, 1969). "Charley". The Guardian. p. 7. (subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Forthcoming
  • Comment: Source is a dead tree newspaper digitised in a library eResource service (ProQuest). I retrieved it through my British Library membership. You may contact me if you need help. This is the first time this fact has emerged on the surface web so I felt it was a particularly valuable article expansion.

5x expanded by JAYFAX (talk). Self-nominated at 21:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 19[edit]

Ham House

View of one wall in the Green Closet with miniature paintings and furniture
View of one wall in the Green Closet with miniature paintings and furniture

Improved to Good Article status by Isaksenk (talk). Self-nominated at 18:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

Rule of man

5x expanded by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 10:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

WTAF-TV (Indiana)

  • ... that Indiana's WTAF-TV fought for more than six years to obtain a network affiliation and reached an agreement with NBC just ten days before shutting down for good? Source: Since the start, March 4 '69 NBC affiliation, March 14 '69 off the air

Created by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

Killing of Lindani Myeni

Created by Ezlev (talk) and FormalDude (talk). Nominated by Ezlev (talk) at 18:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Bill Mullahey

Created by Tcr25 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

George Pitcher (philosopher)

  • ... that philosopher George Pitcher adopted a stray dog and her puppy that he took everywhere, including on a trip to France aboard the Queen Elizabeth 2?Source: "In retirement, Pitcher wrote a memoir, “The Dogs Who Came to Stay” (1996), about two of those dogs — Lupa, a stray pregnant dog who turned up in their gardening shed, and one of her pups, Remus (they found homes for the other pups). They took their dogs everywhere, including to restaurants and to France on the QEII." (Princeton University office of communications

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 05:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Sonny Venkatrathnam

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 05:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 20[edit]

1913 Studebaker strike

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

Romeo Beckham

  • ... that the footballer Romeo Beckham was once released by Arsenal, trained tennis with Andy Murray and later returned to football by joining his father David's MLS affiliate in Fort Lauderdale? Source: Givemesport SCMP ESPN

Converted from a redirect by ArsenalFan700 (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 15:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

Raytheon Anschütz

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

Wapsipinicon Almanac

  • ... that the Wapsipinicon Almanac was started "to silence anyone who thinks Iowa doesn't have a literary culture"?

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 21[edit]

Yonaguni Knoll IV

Created/expanded by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

Questprobe featuring The Hulk

Improved to Good Article status by Cat's Tuxedo (talk). Self-nominated at 16:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

Erynn Chambers, Beer Beer, Truck Truck

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 09:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 22[edit]

Special occasion holding area[edit]

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

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: [59]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [60].
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=1045700110"