Template talk:Did you know

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

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, purge it.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
November 19 1 1
November 21 1
December 4 1
December 7 1
December 8 1
December 9 2
December 12 1
December 15 1
December 20 1
December 22 2 2
December 25 1
December 27 1
December 29 1
December 30 1
December 31 1
January 2 2
January 3 2
January 4 1
January 5 3
January 6 2
January 7 3 1
January 8 2 2
January 9 1
January 10 2 1
January 11 6 4
January 12 2 2
January 13 8 8
January 14 11 7
January 15 11 8
January 16 11 7
January 17 11 7
January 18 19 12
January 19 14 9
January 20 17 8
January 21 9 6
January 22 9 5
January 23 15 9
January 24 15 6
January 25 8 1
January 26 6
Total 207 106
Last updated 20:28, 26 January 2022 UTC
Current time is 21:05, 26 January 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Shortcut

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below).

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.


Instructions for reviewers[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

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

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

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

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

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Instructions for project members[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on November 21[edit]

University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy

University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme
University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 21:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Date and length fine. AGF on book source. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Picture licence fine. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm not sure what source is supposed to support the hook statement that the controversy ended, but the article doesn't seem to: many supporters of the Rebel theme had hard feelings about the whole experience, some of whom remained opposed to the change and Harrison's actions decades later. This indicates to me that while the Rebel theme was replaced (with Maverick), said removal, and the theme itself, remains controversial, even as its retention was controversial at the time. A new hook would seem to be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
How about this? Michael Barera (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Michael Barera, I feel ALT1 is too repetitive: the phrase "Rebel theme" is used three times, and "University of Texas" appears twice. Looking at the image source, it says "Rebels mascot" rather than "Rebel theme", so reflecting that could help the "pictured" bit. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, BlueMoonset, what would you prefer to see? Michael Barera (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Michael Barera, not to be flip, but something that is a) supported by a source and by the article itself, and b) not repetitive. I've looked through the article a few times, and have had trouble coming up with something that is both interesting and meets both a) and b). I've struck the original and ALT1 hooks, and hope you're able to find something more effective and supported without being repetitious. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if a corollary of WP:DYKSG#D5 applies here; we may want to see what happens with the merge proposal before continuing with this, as it wouldn't be good for this to appear on the Main Page with a merge banner. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Reiterating icon here; holds do apply to merge proposals as well as AfD nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 4[edit]

USS Hoggatt Bay

The aircraft carrier
The aircraft carrier

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

  • Comment: This is a pretty excellent quirky hook, but I'd say probably not good for April Fools' Day, since the misdirection isn't the bolded article. Also, I added "U.S." to the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I see. I just want to let you know that I changed "U.S." to "American", as I believe it sounds more natural that way. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Heythereimaguy: Symbol question.svg Fair enough. No one seems to have reviewed this, so I'll get around to it. Article was promoted to GA on December 4, making it new enough, and it's also long enough, plagiarism-free, and neutral. I'm not quite sure if www.ShipbuildingHistory.com or Hazegray.org are reliable sources—it'd be helpful if someone could speak to that. the hook is interesting and cited, but it is not cited inline at the end of the relevant sentence in the article, so that'll need to be fixed. QPQ not required. We're nearly there! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron I would say that ShipBuildingHistory is unreliable. ShipBuildingHistory's home page reveals that it is operated by one person named Tim Colton and I can't find evidence of him being an expert in the field. The other website is only operated by Andrew C. Toppan, but it should be fine due to him having books published by Arcadia Publishing and being a ship historian per the author tab here. His works have also been referenced in the books Battleship Oklahoma BB-37, Network of Bones: Conjuring Key West and the Florida Keys, and No Higher Honor: Saving the USS Samuel Roberts in the Persian Gulf per Google Books. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, SL93! Okay, so both the article and the hook are gonna need a new citation to replace shipbuildinghistory.com. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't answered for a while. I will work on the problems. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I found a source from the US Navy that COULD replace shipbuildinghistory.com, but doesn't mention when the contract was awarded or when it was laid down. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/h/hoggatt-bay.html Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Heythereimaguy: sorry I've been away! My inbox has been piling up and up. That source works fine, as long as it mentions the Kaiser part in the hook and portions of the article that are no longer sourced are cut. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I'm giving 7 more days for the issues to be fixed. SL93 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 7[edit]

Gheorghe Eminescu

Gheorghe Eminescu
Gheorghe Eminescu
  • ... that Gheorghe Eminescu (pictured), nephew of Romania's national poet, circulated his memoirs in samizdat, since the communist regime did not want them published? Source: (in Romanian) Iulian Negrilă, "Restituiri. Gheorghe Eminescu – corespondență inedită (1895–1988)", in Revista ARCA, Vol. XXIV, Issues 1–3, 2013: "Timpul pe care mi-l va mai acorda moşneagul Charon, înainte de a mă invita în barca lui, este rezervat exclusiv punerii la punct a Amintirilor care acoperă trei sferturi de veac şi care din cauza sincerităţii lor nu sunt destinat publicării, fiindcă de altfel nici o editură n-ar avea curajul să le publice. O mare parte din ele privesc evenimentele din Basarabia la care am luat parte şi unde ani de-a rândul am patrulat cu grănicerii mei vegheaţi de zidurile cetăţii lui Ştefan şi de umbra uriaşă a marelui voievod." Additionally backed by Anghel Popa, "Domnul colonel Gheorghe Eminescu", in Analele Bucovinei, Vol. XIII, Issue 2, 2006, pp. 746–747.

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 05:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Am assuming good faith re foreign language sources. Hook is interesting and fulfills all criteria! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @Shushugah: Thank you. I do disagree with the notion that titles should be translated, it is a rather cumbersome task of little value, an which will inevitably result in certain preferences being imposed on the article (translations, however bland, are likely to produce more than one result, whereas the published titles will only have one version). Your main objection is a bit blanket, but I will try to address it. For starters, the two sources on which the hook is based: ARCA is a rather small literary magazine published by the Writers' Union of Romania, which carries exact renditions of Eminescu's correspondence; Anghel Popa, who can be cited as a secondary source attesting that indeed Eminescu was censored and no publishing house would carry his memoirs, has published the cited article with Arhivele Bucovinei, which is a Romanian Academy magazine. Other sources used are Magazin Istoric (arguably the most read and respected popular history magazine in Romania), Hierasus (which was put out by the Botoșani County Museum), Poștalionul and Fereastra (both put out by Mizil City Council, and both cited for their very minute details on Eminescu's biography, quoted directly from Eminescu's statements at various times in his life), Litere (published by the Writers' Union chapter in Târgoviște), Străjer în Calea Furtunilor (of the Alexandru Averescu Foundation, which is a professional body for reserve officers, and is sanctioned by the Ministry of Defense), Studii și Cercetări Științifice (an academic journal put out by the University of Bacău), Studii și Cercetări Juridice (also put out by the Academy, through its Law Institute), Drumul Socialismului (defunct magazine of the Hunedoara County Council), Caietele CNSAS (a historical review of the state agency which researches Securitate archives), Studii Eminescologice (put out by the Botoșani County Eminescu Library), Revista Crisia (of the state-run Țara Crișurilor Museum), Istoria grănicerilor (a military monograph with a rather obscure publishing house, but with three reserve military officers as authors), and of course Augustin Z. N. Pop (whose book was published by the Academy, but back in a day when Romania did not use ISBNs of any kind). The least sanctioned sources the article uses are arguably Observatorul, which is put out by a team of Romanian Canadian journalists in Ontario, and which was considered relevant enough for Eminescu's granddaughter to give them an interview; Climate Literare, which is a rather small literary review (it does have an editorial process, but it is certainly not first-tier); and Scriitorul Român, which is similar to Climate Literare, and perhaps more polemical in nature -- but which merely republished Eminescu's 1982 interview with Corneliu Vadim Tudor (Tudor himself was admittedly a horrible source of information and commentary, especially later in his life, but I would assume his interview with, and observations about, Eminescu would qualify as at least quotable and attributable; especially in that 1980s context where few things were published without getting this sort of national-communist makeover by Ceaușescu's court). I hope that answers your questions, though let me know if you want more details. Dahn (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As I side note: I don't believe there's any informative value, especially about the quality of a source, in rendering its title in English (which is not a requirement, AFAIK, and which is not something that was asked of me in other articles). In this case, some of the titles translate to "Without Eminescu we'd be poorer", "Mizil port and the lost regiment", "Mr Colonel Gheorghe Eminescu", "1774–1789. The French monarchy tries to save itself", "Interview with Roxana Eminescu: 'Thirst for money, dislike for intellectual values, that is [sic] our European daily bread, I can live through that with more ease among the foreigners than among my own kind'" (this last one in particular can be translated about six different ways, all with the same meaning). I hope you can see how the titles in themselves have no special informative value. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Dahn Thank you for the comprehensive explanation and you're right it's not a policy requirement. I've changed my DYK review to a pass. I made a sample edit at Gheorghe Eminescu which added a link to Gabriel Moisa's article, using a translated title from the journal itself but agree that's not always possible/desirable. I just had a hard time googling these sources myself, and some more guidance of where to find them would have helped, whether identifiers, links or anything else, but at the end of the day, non English, offline/paywalled sources are completely admissible for Wikipedia usage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Shushugah: Most welcome, and thank you as well! I will add that many of the sources used have online versions, but they tend to rot very quickly in Romania, as happened to Anghel Popa, who can only be found in the Wayback version. Since I did not want to have to archive all the links by hand, or to search if they have ever been archived, and since they were all published on paper as well, I thought it best not to include the links. I will say again that I am opposed to translating titles, especially if we only do it for one random title out of (however many there are). Dahn (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment
I'm failing to verify the hook. Neither Eminescu nor Popa mention any circulation of the work, which is an important distinction between a samizdat and a manuscript. Popa himself is aware of such a manuscript because Eminescu told him about it (in a letter and during a discussion), not because he had a copy. Furthermore, the only copy mentioned by Popa is the one sent to the official museum of the Communist Party, i.e. a feature highly unusual for a samizdat. Then there's the part about the regime not wanting to publish it: all I can verify is that Eminescu believed it would not be published and therefore made no attempt to do so. The article is interesting, however the hook is editorializing with no support from the sources.Anonimu (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
To be constructive, here's an alt fully supported by the sources:
ALT1: ... that Gheorghe Eminescu (pictured), nephew of Romania's national poet, refrained from publishing his memoirs, as he believed they would not be acceptable to the country's communist regime? Anonimu (talk)
@Anonimu: Actually, youre misreading the source (not the first time this happens). Popa mentions, on page 746, that the manuscript had several copies that were shared among Eminescus friends, and that some were used for publication of the 1995 print version: doi admiratori, sensibili la amintirea postumă a Domnului colonel Eminescu, au publicat [amintirile] bazându-se pe paginile manuscris pe care autorul, cu generozitatea-i cunoscută, le-a oferit acestora în timpul vieții sale. This is mentioned and sourced in the article, as is the fact, also sourced from Popa, that one such copy was kept by Popescu-Puțuri. Lets note: he did not send them "to the museum", he assigned them to Popescu-Puțuri personally, and believed that they would eventually be hosted by the Museum, because, as Popa argues, he also believed that communism would turn liberal at some point. On that same page in Popa, you will be able to clearly distinguish the words: Evenimentele ce nu puteau fi destinate publicării, precum și întrega perioadă interbelică, au format un al doilea manuscris -- this is Popa endorsing Eminescus belief that the memoirs couldnt have been published, making your other claim ("all I can verify is that Eminescu believed it would not be published") simply weird. Dahn (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can check Popa (the source supposedly supporting the original hook which I cannot verify) at this link, on PDF page number 364 and 365. On page 364 Popa says "The memoirs, including events up to and including the First World War, except the politically "sensitive" ones for the communist regime, were the manuscript that remained in his family. The events that could not be intended for publication, as well as the entire interwar period, formed a second manuscript, which he handed over to Ion Popescu-Puţuri, according to his own testimony." Thus two manuscripts: one for his family, one for Puturi, no copies circulating clandestinely. Same page, quote from Eminescu "I will entrust them to Comrade Ion Popescu-Puţuri, for the Party History Museum", thus the second manuscript was intended by Eminescu for the the party museum, using Puturi as a vehicle, again something very unusual for a samizdat. Popa also says the first manuscript was given to two "admirers" and that he suspects there's another manuscript because Eminescu once told him some memories Popa didn't find in the published book. Considering that Eminescu's published memoirs actually include memories much after WWI, is it quite possible that the published manuscript is the one delivered to Puturi (Gabriel Gheorghe, the editor, was part of the dacomanic current groomed by Puturi in the 80s). So, no clear indication of (limited) circulation characteristic of samizdat. Regarding the second part, it's not clear whether it is Popa's opinion or just his report of Eminescu's beliefs, but it's still much less than the regime refusing publication (it was never asked in the first place). As a side note, the regime did publish rather anti-Soviet takes on Bessarabia in the late 80s (including a barely toned down reprint of Kiritescu nationalistic account of post-WWI Romanian intervention).Anonimu (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
First off, the quotations are on pages 745 and 746, precisely where I already indicated they were. And precisely in that link, going to page 746, the text clearly mentions other copies being kept by friends, which, like the text youre quoting, means that "two manuscripts" refers to two versions of the manuscript (one being less politically risky than the other), not to just two copies. I will quote again and translate the relevant part: doi admiratori, sensibili la amintirea postumă a Domnului colonel Eminescu, au publicat [amintirile] bazându-se pe paginile manuscris pe care autorul, cu generozitatea-i cunoscută, le-a oferit acestora în timpul vieții sale = "two admirers, rendered sensitive to the posthumous memory of Colonel Eminescu, have published [the memoirs] using those pages of manuscript that the author, with his known generosity, had offered to them during his lifetime." Those manuscripts kept by admirers were the bases for the printed book of 1996 -- again, as I already said, and as the article clearly has it. This is quite clear indication of the limited circulation as samizdat, and I have no idea why youre pretending not to be able to read that part of the text. There is also absolutely no indication whatsoever that the two admirers had access to the copy kept by Puțuri, but in fact Popa suggests that they had fragmentary copies of their own, donated specifically to them by Eminescu.
To claim that Puțuri intended to publish it with the museum is to ignore the whole part in which Popa specifically says that the reason he assumes Eminescu did what he did was because he believed the regime would turn liberal. Moreover, the one mention of the Museum is about Eminescu's intention of having the book kept by the Museum, not even him saying that he did actually donate it as such. It is also pointless to speculate whether the book would have been published by Puțuri, Museum or no Museum, since he never did: note how the letter specifying the manuscript being shown to Puțuri is from 1980, a full nine years before the fall of communism. Was the book published in that alomost-a-decade? No? Then whats your point?
Im not sure what it adds that other books mentioning Bessarabian issues were (occasionally) published. But if we have to, then here are some issues to raise. On the one hand, we know for sure what the core stance of the regime was from the fact that it was impossible, up to the very last days of the regime, to quote Doina, by Eminescus uncle -- sources I cite in the article specifically note that it was its take on Bessarabia which was one of the most serious "problems" with the poem. On the other, see the quote from Eminescu on what specifically made his memoirs unpublishable -- he mentions not just Bessarabian issues at large, but Bessarabian issues which are interwoven in the communist narrative about interwar issues.
Lastly: it is actually very clear that the issue of censorship is Popas opinion as well -- its just that you failed to notice that in the text during your earlier readings. Popas narrative voice: Evenimentele ce nu puteau fi destinate publicării, precum și întrega perioadă interbelică, au format un al doilea manuscris = "Events that could not be put in print, as well as the entire interwar period, were the subject matter for another manuscript". Dahn (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg marking for return to WP:DYKN. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, given the below discussion, the fact that the hook has been verified beyond a reasonable doubt, and is only being held up by an objection thoroughly shown to be frivolous, isn’t it high time this was passed already? — Biruitorul Talk 19:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I restate the fact that I have failed to verify two significant parts of the hook: the manuscript being a samizdat and the government having any opinion on it. The quote provided by the nominator verifies neither. I also linked the additional source used to "support" the original hook, thus anyone can try to verify it (automatic translation does a fair job). The objection has not been shown to be frivolous, it was just called that way by the nominator. The reviewer should look directly at the sources and judge by himself whether they verify the hook, not just go along with what the nominator says (or what I'm saying, of course).Anonimu (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Have there been any updates on this issue after Anonimu's objections, which I argued were entirely frivolous? Dahn (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • None of the sources call Eminescu's work a samizdat, and such claim is extraordinary, considering "Romania is the only country where not one genuinely full-blown samizdat publication appeared" ref. Moreover, the regime's attitude towards Eminescu's manuscript as described in the original hook is purely an opinion, not a fact. ALT1, which I have proposed, would solve these two important issues. Anonimu (talk)
      • The text you're quoting from refers to samizadat journals, and even there qualifies the term samizdat with "full-blown", while also noting that less full-blown samizdats exist in archives (precisely the case here); this is plainly and painfully visible in the very link you provided, you again cutting down text exactly where it seems to endorse your claims. The claim about the regime and its attitude is (a) a qualified opinion, by the secondary source provided, and (b) a fact in itself, since the manuscript was never published outside of private circulation. It is also a fact that it was a samizdat from the existence of several copies in circulation. It wasnt a major samizdat, a "fiull-blown" samizdat, but neither is it claimed that it was. You are wasting everybodys time with this ridiculous objection. Dahn (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 8[edit]

Environmental defender

Expanded 5x by Larataguera (talk). Self-nominated, 13 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Welcome to DYK! I'll be taking on this review. Some notes in advance: I'm also a newbie (this will be my third review), but so long as each of us do our best it should work out alright. Also, this review is happening faster-than-norm, so don't expect this fast of a review for future nominations, please! With all that aside, best of luck, and the initial review will be up shortly. Canadianerk (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - sources are missing for the end of the paragraphs in sections "Legal framework" and "Renewable energy..."
  • Neutral: Red XN - I think the article needs to cover all significant viewpoints under WP:POV. I don't believe that the criticism by "governments, corporations and local elites" (the use of local elites raises concerns as well, WP:VOICE, judgemental/political, questionable whether neutral?) summarized to 3 sentences under "Criticism and response", and dismissing it as financial interest in relevant projects, is acceptable under the Neutrality policy. Obviously, providing too many/niche examples could cause things to spiral wildly out of scope, and the amount of balance needs to be guided by WP:UNDUE - but providing something seems appropriate (and necessary) for neutrality to be established. While relevant to the article, the section is focused only on criticism from fellow activists and academia. To my knowledge, a standalone article could probably be made about the range of views on this aspect alone, so there are plenty of options to draw upon. (if there is one, linking to it and summarizing it briefly within this one could help resolve this neutrality problem as well).

I'm a bit concerned overall about the article, how much is written as fact vs opinion - any reassurance on the overall neutrality of the article would be helpful.

  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in Criticism and Response looks like a potential WP:OR or MOS:TERRORIST, as it isn't explicitly stated by the source cited? I ctrl+f'd the use of the word terror, and I think this is the passage that is being referenced: "The so called “War on Terror” intensified the stigmatization and criminalization of activism both in North America and the EU. For instance, Europol qualifies various forms of protest and action against resource extraction companies as “single issue terrorism”, which has led to increasing surveillance and criminalization" - finding a source which more directly supports the claim might be an easier option to pursue, as "intensified stigmatization and criminalization" doesn't equate "In the Global North, the war on terror has resulted in environmental defenders being cast as terrorists" to me. I can see the implication there, but I'm concerned whether it's enough to support it as is.
  • I'm not familiar with the policy/precedent so this isn't like, a 100% urgent problem, but what's with just calling out the last name of authors of sources? I took a brief look around, but I've only seen something like that where their names were already established. I'd suspect it would be confusing to the average reader if "However, Ghazoul and Kleinschroth" is just in the middle of a paragraph, without any context on who they are. It's done several times throughout - it's open for discussion, so if you know the relevant policy that would help, and of course, any help from any other people on whether this is okay would be helpful.
  • There's not much/any context on how land is defended within the article. This concern in particular I don't think is necessary to address, but just wanted to note this - this alone isn't going to hold back this nomination imo.

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - I think it is interesting, but it would benefit by being a tease, (only providing part of the context), so removing "on the front of the global environmental justice movement" could help boost its "hookiness". Only relevant if the other issues are resolved obviously, so just noting this suggestion here.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Well, going in I thought this would be simple to review - but indeed, just like the subject matter, this is a very complicated subject. So, I want to make sure to get this right. To do as much due-diligence as possible, I did look through your talk page's discussion of this article to understand the background, in addition to the normal review process. I believe your concern about whether this article can stand on its own is relevant - particularly because more commonly used terms "climate activist" and "environmental activist" are redirects into articles about the movement (Individual action on climate change for the former - Environmentalism for the latter) instead of standalone articles... I'm not sure why that is, but if you have that concern, it's concerning to me. An article on mainpage shouldn't have concern on the part of the nominator that the article could be deleted? Or did I miss something in that convo? But ultimately, for the purposes of this review, the state of articles outside of the review isn't within my scope. I've flagged some issues above, some more serious/relevant than others. For now, I am leaving the initial as Maybe, so this can be discussed further, I'm not going to reject the nomination at this stage - and of course, comments from other volunteers at DYK would be helpful too. I hope this makes sense - if you have questions/need clarification don't hesitate to ask - I'm going to try to explain my thinking as the discussion goes on. Thank you for your patience Larataguera, and I hope that regardless of the result of the discussion, we both learn from this process! Canadianerk (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Canadianerk for this prompt and thorough review. I've made a few changes to try and address some of these issues. Does the additional example in the criticism section (for tactics) help balance the POV? Give me a day or so to address some of your other notes. As far as this article's relation to other pages, it is a bit complicated, but there's plenty of sources here to establish that this is a notable topic, and there was consensus on my talk page for me to create this page.
Again, thanks for the review.
Canadianerk I agree with your concern that the article may not meet NPOV, but I am not a specialist in the subject. Would it make sense to start a discussion on NPOV on the article talk page and invite comments from relevant Wikiprojects like environment and climate change?
Larataguera in future, your own talk page is probably not the best place to establish a broad consensus. Also, you need to sign your talk page posts with four tildes for notifications to work. TSventon (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's where I'm at, Larataguera - I want to be very clear, and thank you for your efforts to cover a complicated subject. Your response to my review did significantly improve the article in the other areas of concern, and the time+effort put in is appreciated. But when it comes to NPOV, I'm still not certain whether this article meets the policy. And I simply cannot ignore that uncertainty, no matter how strong or weak it is. I agree with TSventon, this article requires attention from outside the DYK process, from people more familiar with this subject area. So, a NPOV discussion seems like the most appropriate step forward. With all the above in mind, here's the next steps: It's time to establish a NPOV discussion in the talk page. From there, I'm going to leave it to you and other editors to debate and review the neutrality of the article. If the result is that the page is fine/edits resolve any NPOV concerns, I will be request a fresh review from an uninvolved editor here at DYK. A more experienced, non-involved reviewer taking a look (+comments from DYK regulars,) in that scenario is ideal. If the discussion results in a different outcome, I can close this nomination as "No", as appropriate. As with my review, I hope this outcome makes sense. It's unfortunate that it turned out this way, and thank you for your patience Larataguera. Best of luck, and I hope you don't become discouraged by whatever the outcomes are. Please keep trying! -Next, I regret to say that at time of writing, I do not have time to set up the talk page discussion. Apologies! I can do it later if necessary- Finally, thank you TSventon for your comment, it was very helpful. My thanks to you both, Canadianerk (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Canadianerk, thanks for giving it a shot. I wish I better understood the POV concerns so that I could fix them, but it sounds like it's just a general uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the topic. I get it. It occurs to me that articles on environmental justice topics are unlikely to be featured on DYK, because this uncertainty about POV would be common: it's a potentially contentious field of study that many people are unfamiliar with. I'm not saying my article couldn't have POV issues. I'm just observing that Wikipedia as a whole may not be well equipped to deal with those issues through the processes that benefit other articles. If this article were about a baseball player or a new technology, most DYK volunteers would probably feel capable of assessing the POV and guiding the author toward an acceptable article. This gap in Wikipedia's capabilities is a symptom of systemic bias. Of course that's not your fault. It's not even your responsibility to do anything about it. I'm just reflecting on my experience with this process. I think you've done a great job and been very helpful.
Anyway, thanks for your help. I'm fine with a NPOV discussion on the talk page. If that just means putting a section on the talk page and asking about POV, I can do that. I'm not sure what would come of it. I rather doubt too many people are watching the page, but I suppose we could try it. Larataguera (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • What it comes down to is simply my inexperience on Wikipedia. My frame of reference for these types of articles and the subject's neutrality is inherently tied to the news media, which has its own biases - complicating my ability to confidently judge NPOV in this area. You're right - my uncertainty is a reflection of a problem that Wikipedia as a whole is still grappling with. As an intersection of politics, economics and human rights amidst other possible fields and factors, it's a lot to weigh for me -- I've made several attempts to write out the problem to try to resolve this myself, and they are coming off to me as biased when I read them back, towards "left" AND "right" leaning arguments on this subject... it's changed back and forth, depending on which instance. It could be a symptom of my own mental health, lack of confidence, biases, lack of knowledge, or a combination of. And as a new DYK reviewer in particular, I'm trying to be more cautious (or paranoid...) than others. So, I appreciate your thoughts Larataguera - and I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful! With the above clear to me, I'm adjusting next steps a tad. I'm leaving a comment at the DYK talk page, as more experienced reviewers weighing in should be helpful. If it doesn't end up helping, or the same idk is the consensus, we can make requests for support at the NPOV noticeboard; WP:PROCC; WP:CSB; and/or WP:HR. Canadianerk (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg With all the above in mind, I'm opting to close my participation in this as "Again" instead of just leaving this review sitting in limbo. Hopefully that gets this process moving again soon - I've posted a link to this under the "Older nominations" page - this will be addressed, but I have no control over when I'm afraid. Farewell Larataguera, and to repeat myself just a tad - do keep contributing, please! All the best - Canadianerk (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No comment on other issues but I think this topic needs to be merged to environmentalist as as far as I can tell, "environmental defender" is just a (slightly POV?) synonym for environmentalist. (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the main problem is that the article pretty much relies on sources that are sympathetic to the subjects' work and argue in favor of their protection. As I've argued in the merge discussion, an issue is that the concept itself seems to be used only by people who argue in favor of more protections and rights for environmentalists who face criminal charges, oppression and harassment from the powers that be. I'm obviously not saying we should create WP:FALSEBALANCE by citing climate change denial literature, but the positioning of the sources will make it difficult to create a NPOV-compliant article at the moment. Perhaps this is only a temporary thing and we will have to wait a few years to achieve true NPOV. Regardless of the foregoing, I've run a limited spotcheck and verification has failed three times ([1][2][3] [perhaps I've missed something? Open to being corrected]), which would indicate that the article does not pass WP:DYKCRIT #4. JBchrch talk 13:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch. What does it mean that it may be "difficult to create a NPOV-compliant article at the moment"? This article describes the existing scholarship on this topic. If the existing scholarship advocates for additional protections and rights for environmental defenders, then an NPOV article would say that. It wouldn't be NPOV if there were another body of existing scholarship left out of the article, but I don't think that's the case here. (If you find something, please let me know). Regarding your spotchecks--I'll concede that there are (or were and possibly remain) some poorly phrased or poorly sourced statements, but I think they are consistent with the literature. For example, this removal is just a textbook definition of environmental injustice. The existing literature broadly concludes that environmental injustice does exist. It isn't a POV problem to point that out (even if the statement could be better phrased or better sourced). I find that talking about environmental injustice on Wikipedia frequently raises POV concerns, but I would encourage everyone to treat it as any other topic, and simply look at what the scholarship says about it, and say that. It is certainly not appropriate, as JBchrch seems to suggest in the above comment, for us to anticipate some nonexistent body of research (presumably suggesting that environmental injustice doesn't exist?) and claim that we can't have NPOV until that body of literature materilises. Larataguera (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Larataguera: It is not outlandish to suggest that a field of inquiry might be too recent to achieve NPOV: that is a problem that can happen in the biomedical topic area, for instance. If I read your sources, the concept started to gain currency in 2017 or so. That is very recent and it's all I'm saying. I don't think simply talking about environmental injustice on Wikipedia leads to POV concerns by itself, but I would note that in this very comment of yours you claim that as powerful multi-national corporations reap the benefits of this extraction while marginalized communities bear the burdens is basically a WP:BLUESKY claim. Do you see how that way of approaching things might lead to some editing conflicts? JBchrch talk 11:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch: This concept became increasingly important beginning with the UN declaration on human rights defenders in 1998. There were important legal cases using the ED framework as early as 2009; Global Witness released reports about deaths of EDs in the early 2000s; so yes, the concept is fairly new. Perhaps the article could better describe the timeframe for which this concept has been adopted. I haven't seen any Wikipedia or DYK guidelines concerning treatment of new topics. I would have thought that NPOV would describe the existing literature and be clear about the timeframe the topic has been established. We're looking at 10-20 years here depending how you measure it.
I'm not saying the above quote is necessarily a WP:BLUESKY claim (although in the context of an article on an environmental justice topic it's very nearly so). I'm acknowledging that it was possibly not adequately sourced, but I'm saying that it doesn't constitute a POV problem. While environmental defenders may be a fairly new concept, Environmental justice is a concept that has been around for over four decades and constitutes a sizeable global movement and body of literature. It is reasonable to simplify the basic premise of that movement and literature to the statement that powerful people and corporations receive benefits from environmental extraction, and marginalized communities bear the burdens of those activities. eg., pg 4 final paragraph To state this well-established observation in the context of an article about an EJ topic is not a POV problem. If it is perceived as a POV problem (and it appears to be) on Wikipedia, I'll suggest that this is because most Wikipedia editors receive the benefits of these activities and do not bear the burdens. This constitutes systemic bias that predisposes Wikipedia editors (as a whole, not necessarily as individuals) to perceive a POV problem when presented with environmental justice issues. So yes, in answer to your question, I do see how talking about EJ issues can lead to editing conflicts. But I think that Wikipedia as a whole desperately needs to learn to work through those conflicts in order to correct systemic bias. Again, thank you for your time and your work on this topic! Larataguera (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Possibly it makes sense to think about it like this: If this were an article related to climate change, and it included the statement, 'global climate is changing because of greenhouse gas emissions', another editor might reasonably mark that statement as needing citation (or just find a citation for it), but the statement probably wouldn't be removed and used to support a claim that the article doesn't meet NPOV. I think the fact that some people reap benefits of environmental extraction while marginalised communities bear the burdens is broadly supported by decades of study in the social sciences. Climate change as a function of GHG emissions is similarly supported by decades of study in climate science. The climate science is well understood by the majority of established Wikipedia editors. Environmental justice not so much. Larataguera (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg We should not be calling for a new reviewer until the merge discussion has been closed; if the merge happens, there's no need for a review, and if it doesn't, then the review can resume. Review on hold until then. I have also moved the above discussion to after the review so it is outside the DYK checklist template rather than inside. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with moving comments, and flagging this for passersby. Canadianerk (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 9[edit]

Murad Takla

Created by Mehediabedin (talk). Self-nominated at 10:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough and long enough (though stub tagged), but—ironically for this topic—the English is absolutely rough! I had to suggest new hook wording, not to mention repair the page. The hook sources seem to check out, though I cannot check others because I can't read or speak Bengali.
However, I was also questioning the notability of the underlying topic, and some people I was consulting with on the page felt that it might not meet the general notability guideline. I also found some of the sources, including the hook source, to be flimsy (or even fluffy or humorous in tone). Are there better sources available, Mehediabedin? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sammi Brie Many TV News showed report on Murad Takla. This term is famous in Bangladesh. But I don't know if I can present these sources here. Most sources are written in Bengali. Only two sources in English are available which I mentioned in the article. Mehedi Abedin 12:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Mehediabedin Non-English sources are acceptable as long as they are reliable. SL93 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
SL93 The non-english sources I mentioned in the article are all from reliable newspaper and online newspaper website. We have even Prothom Alo, one of the most read and most reliable newspaper in Bangladesh. Mehedi Abedin 09:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Mehediabedin I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I would question whether newsbangla24.com and banglaekattor.com are reliable (have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking). However, the others (The Daily Star, The Business Standard, Kaler Kantho, Prothom Alo, Jugantor, Dhaka Tribune, Bangla Tribune, Daily Inqilab, and Jamuna TV) are reputable news organizations reliable for the sorts of things newspapers are usually reliable for. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I can replace banglaekattor.com source with reliable news report video source from RTV if it is permissible. Mehedi Abedin 06:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Potamophylax coronavirus

Created by Rex65mya (talk). Nominated by Leomk0403 (talk) at 02:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I fixed up a number of issues just now but the article still needs work. At least one ref to an unreliable source (Int. Business Times), and I have a suspicion that several of these secondary factoid pieces are quite entirely duplicative and could be replaced by one single example. Alternative hook is unsuitable - species are never just refererred to by their specific epithet, so this is misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Potamophylax coronavirus
  • @Leomk0403: @Elmidae: The following is additional information; the above reviewer takes precedence here.
  • As of today, the article has only 1185 characters, whereas for DYK it needs at least 1500 characters.
  • The first sentence of the Etymology section refers to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. However that pandemic is now consistently called Covid 19, because some people were already catching and spreading it at the end of 2019, so although "2020" does match the source (source 1 as of today), the point needs to be clarified somehow.
  • The habitat of this caddis fly is the Lumbardhi i Decanit river, and in the article that habitat is described as a battlefield between two sides. Since the article needs to be expanded to pass DYK, it would make sense to expand by quoting the points of view of both sides. How is the caddis fly threatened? How does the construction business defend its actions?
  • The picture in the article is free, but is not clear as a thumbnail, so I have made a cropped version for you (cropped versions of article images are permitted at DYK).
  • I have added an External links section with commonscat and a couple more possible sources. The second one may be a more readable version of the Ibrahimi source that you already have, though it may not have all the information - I have not checked.
  • The article is neutral and the QPQ is OK. Earwig confirms no copyvio.
  • I hope that some of this well help to bring this nom forward. Storye book (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Added some info (turns out original desc is CC-BY-4.0 so that was easy.) For the IBN ref, a citation about S.covida ( can't spell genus) is a good substitution.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 14:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Elmidae: Regarding your above review, the creator has now made some improvements to the article. Please could you kindly check this out? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This needs a new reviewer. The original reviewer hasn't edited since January 12. SL93 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @SL93: Would you like me to formalise my above supportive review comments into a full review? I feel that I should ask first, because of the new reviewer symbol which asks for somebody else. Storye book (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you, I shall do that. I have guests at the moment, so please forgive me if I have to do partial saves before I complete this. Storye book (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg ALT0 checks out in the article, and is cited there. However the source for ALT1 explains more clearly than the article why or how the insect is endangered by the hydropower plant. That situation weakens ALT1, because the article does not reflect the source's comment about pollution of the river. I have struck ALT1 for that reason, but if you would like to address that point, I can un-strike it. Storye book (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 12[edit]

The Concept of Active Defence in China's Military Strategy

Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 09:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The quotes in a review are in the wrong area. "Writing for The Wire, Manoj Joshi in his review suggests that the book seeks to unravel “the riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” of Chinese military strategy and strongly recommends that the book "should be [a] compulsory reading in our [India's] military institutions". compared to "Amrita Jash has done a signal service in trying to put together a publication that seeks to unravel “the riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” of Chinese military strategy for the Indian reader." The sentence should be rewritten so that the quotes can be placed before seeks and then after strategy. The quotes for "The book seeks to unravel "the riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" of Chinese military strategy. in the Content section is the same way. I know that there are quotes in the middle of the quote, but the other content is still being lifted from the source. There are two parts that are exactly like the source that need to be reworded - "the directions of contemporary Chinese military thinking" and "deliberate deception to camouflage offensive action". The direct quotes for "Indian Navy's Captain Gurpreet S. Khurana in his review for the MP-IDSA's Journal of Defence Studies suggests that the book attempts "to answer some key questions of immense relevance today about China as a neighbour, as well as China as a major global power. [...] as the author says, ‘What entails China's rise?’" are misplaced compared to the source. SL93 (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Manoj Joshi is quoting from the book, hence he used the quotes in his review. Rest of your comment/suggestion is not clear. Can you please elaborate more? Venkat TL (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Venkat TL I realize that. However, the content that you lift from a reviewer's words need to be directly quoted as well. I fixed those issues as they are minor. There are only a few other issues. There are two parts that are exactly like the source that need to be reworded - "the directions of contemporary Chinese military thinking" and "deliberate deception to camouflage offensive action". Manoj Joshi's quote is in the content section and the reception section - it would be better if there were no repeats. If you remove the same sentence from the content section, the article will still be long enough for DYK. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Based on your suggestions, I made a few copy edits. Venkat TL (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Symbol confirmed.svg You're welcome. The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. It is neutral. A QPQ is not needed. The promoter can choose the hook. SL93 (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
            • I don't think these hooks work – they are presenting an opinion from this opinion piece as a fact. WP:RSOPINION is relevant. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
              • Mx. Granger, it is a book review for the book that is the subject of the article. I think the news site TheWire has put this book review in the wrong section. Venkat TL (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
                • A book review sounds like an opinion piece to me, and in any case the source labels it as an opinion piece. We can't present an author's opinions in wikivoice as if they're facts. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
                  • The beginning of the title of the article itself says "Book Review: Unravelling the Enigmatic Chinese Military and its Idea of 'Active Defence'". How else can we source an article about a book, if not from book review? I think this should be allowed. This is my first nomination. I have no idea how other Did You Know Nominations on books have proceeded. I think we need advice from folks familiar with Wikipedia articles on books. Venkat TL (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
                    • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT1: ... that according to reviewer Manoj Joshi, The Concept of Active Defence in China's Military Strategy is in reality "active offence"? ALT1 would work due to the reviewer having an article, but someone else would need to approve my alt hook. Mx. Granger added part of the content so I will tag for a reviewer for the alt. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
                      • Ok. This seems to be a complex process. I have no idea what I am supposed to do right now. If anyone is expecting me to do something, please ping me and say explicitly.Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
                        • Not really complex. Someone that didn't contribute to the article or the review needs to verify ALT1 to see if it is acceptable. You don't need to do anything right now. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Is ALT1 acceptable? First, an overview of the article, in order to put the ALTs into context of the subject at hand. The subject is the book.

I think the article as it stands is not neutral, and that the ALTs which repeat a non-neutral point of view are treading on dangerous ground. To balance the article, the creator would do well to read through the Journal of Defence Studies review in full, and summarise the very complex arguments in the article. Whether that review is just somebody's opinion or not, it does make clear that the book is very carefully and at length discussing all the background and subtlety of the situation, and not putting forward one accusation (that China is pretending to have a defence policy, but that it really has an attack policy).

Subtlety is an interesting word. People may think it is to do with craftiness and plotting, but really subtlety is something which, as you stare at it, seems to change before your eyes into one thing and then into another thing. That effect occurs because you are looking at something which is neither one thing nor the other, but is in reality something else and/or a combination of both things or various things. The Journal of Defence Studies review appears to recognise that. The Manoj Joshi review quoted in the above ALTs appears to be a knee-jerk reaction based on what the West expects China to be up to, and (as I understand it) the context of that knee-jerk reaction could be the fact that the West is already doing that very thing - as the JDS review says.

So my suggestion is that the creator should re-write the article in a neutral manner, presenting all the complexities mentioned in the JDS review, besides the Manoj Joshi review. Once that is acceptable, we can then look for an ALT which represents the subject of the article in a balanced manner.

I should add that my stance here is not biased east-west or vice versa. I do recognise that China has a far, far older and far more complex philosophical attitude to war and politics than the West has ever had - and there is the language barrier. That makes it difficult to fully understand and respect each other. But in this article, we do need to make a good attempt to try to understand, using the few sources that we have for this subject, then we need to treat the subject with respect. In case any of the above is not clear, my response to the above ALTs is a no - but its worth trying again. Storye book (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Insert "DYK maybe" icon based on the thorough review above. Flibirigit (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I will try to fix the pointed issues. Need some time. Venkat TL (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 15[edit]

Soluble NSF attachment protein

Sec17, a yeast homolog of SNAP
Sec17, a yeast homolog of SNAP
  • ... that some bacterial toxins indirectly stop snaps (yeast homolog pictured)? Source: will pull the article cites on botulinum and tetanus
    • Reviewed: working on it
    • Comment: part of a Wiki Ed assignment

5x expanded by CsikFejA (talk). Nominated by Rotideypoc41352 (talk) at 16:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC).

  • A previous version of the article and of the hook called Sec17 a yeast ortholog. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg This is a worthy article, which has clearly involved a great deal of careful work. Thank you for this. The following improvements should be easy to carry out; if you could please do that, then this nomination should pass DYK.

  • (1) Typos:
"SNAP protein are localized" (proteins?),
"These proteins are contain transmembrane regions" (delete "are"?),
"Initial binding of NSF to SNAP been is likely related to interactions" (delete "been?),
"can take place under only conditions where a components and a membrane is present" (only under; a component),
"The SNARE theory of vesicle fusion, describes" (delete comma),
"These complex form similar structures" (complexes),
"step occurs prior to a calcium ion mediated fusion event, and thus revealing, that SNAP and NSF proteins initiate" (delete "and", delete comma after "revealing"),
"do not directly interact with SNAP, but the indirectly impact its ability" (the→they),
"become more sever over time" (severe),
"at the beginning of the century" (1900? 2000?),
"These structural finding have been confirmed" (findings),
"has been found both to be disease causing and has" (delete "both"; disease causing → cause disease),
"in disease course and development" (course → cause?),
"Aberrant of signaling and trafficking of proteins" (aberrance?),
"implication of it's role" (no apostrophe),
"may be potential target to improve" (a target, or targets?),
"the exact mechanism are yet to be identified" (mechanism or mechanisms?),
"until further experience with the platform is gather" (gathered).
  • (2) Too many paragraphs have no citation at the end. With this kind of exacting subject, all paragraphs should have a citation at the end, at the very least.
  • (3) You may possibly have a citation for the hook somewhere in the article, but, not being a scientist, I shall never find it without help. So please make sure that the facts of the hook are cited in the article, and write the links to the citations next to the hook on this template page, to help us, please.
  • (4) The hook is not uninteresting - I just don't understand it, and most readers will not understand it. Can you write a hook that a non-scientist might understand? For example, could you say that the study of snaps has helped scientists to understand more about e.g. Huntingdon's disease or whatever?
  • (5) You do not have to do a review (QPQ) because you do not yet have 5 or more DYKs. Storye book (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Rotideypoc41352 I'm giving this 7 days to be taken care of. The nominator has edited a few times since the review and a talk page message. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 20[edit]

3-nen E-gumi Utatan

  • ... that the Japanese pop music group 3-nen E-gumi Utatan was formed to sing the opening theme to the 2015 TV-series Assassination Classroom? Source: Assassination Classroom Anime Cast Sings Opening Theme, "The second 2015 issue of Shueisha's Weekly Shonen Jump magazine is announcing on Monday that five characters in the Assassination Classroom (Ansatsu Kyōshitsu) anime will sing the opening theme song, "Seishun Satsubatsu-ron" (Youth Savage Theory)."
    • ALT1: ... that the Japanese pop music group 3-nen E-gumi Utatan was formed of voice actors from the 2015 TV-series Assassination Classroom?
    • Reviewed: [[]]
    • Comment: I should be exempt from QPQ, since this is only my second DYK nomination

Moved to mainspace by IanTEB (talk). Self-nominated at 19:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment That merger proposal should probably be resolved before review- hopefully reasonably quickly. Canadianerk (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Per above. Personally I'd agree though that the group doesn't have any notability outside of the series and probably should be merged. This isn't like sweet ARMS where the group went on to perform for series outside of the series they were created for. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Lillian Eichler Watson

Created by Aeichler1 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg This is a good nomination! I really enjoyed reading the article. The article is new enough, long enough and has only one sourcing issue (there is a single uncited sentence at the end of the "Personal life" section. The line can be removed or a source can be added to fix this). No copyvio issues (there was one false positive on Earwig, because a quote didn't have quotation marks, but I fixed this). Both hooks are cited and interesting, but I'm not sure about the quality of the sources. Both seem a bit blog-like, especially Hooshmand.net. Would it be possible to find alternatives? This nom's ready as soon as the sourcing issues are fixed. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election

  • ... that after Chandigarh fell from second place to sixty-sixth place in the list of cleanest cities in India, the residents voted out the ruling BJP party in the civic election? Source: "In 2016, Chandigarh was the second cleanest city in the country. But in 2021, the city dropped down to the 66th position, which was a source of major disappointment for the residents... the city’s poor performance in cleanliness was also one of the key reasons that led to BJP’s fall." Indian Express
    • ALT1: ... that after Chandigarh fell from second place to sixty-sixth place in the list of cleanest cities in India, the residents voted out the ruling party in the civic election? Source: Same as above.
    • ALT2: ...that Aam Aadmi Party won most seats in its debut at Chandigarh civic election? Source: AAP Wins Most Seats In Chandigarh Polls On Debut, BJP Mayor Among Losers NDTV
    • Reviewed: Exempt

5x expanded by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC).

  • I'll review this. Please give me a while to read and check the article. Storye book (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg A necessary political article - thank you Venkat TL. Three points:

  • (1) I have to question ALTs 0 and 1, because they are not written out as a clear cause and effect in the article, with source next to it. However , ALT2 is OK because it bears out in the article. If you could please write them out in full in the article with citations, then we can keep them as options.
  • (2) Please would you write the full name of the party next to its three-letter-form in brackets, the first time you mention each party in the main text? E.g. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Then you can use the short form as many times as you like afterwards (this is for the main text only, not the infobox or tables).
  • (3) In the Elected mayor section, the second sentence can be removed. You have no source for it, and however much we might expect it to happen, there is no proof that it will happen in 2022 anyway. Storye book (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Done (2) and (3). Will look at Suggestion (1) later. Venkat TL (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 29[edit]

Donald H. Elliott

  • ... that Donald H. Elliott, in his role as chairman of the New York City Planning Commission, helped lead the city out of the Robert Moses era? Source: "Donald H. Elliott, who as chairman of the City Planning Commission in the late 1960s and early ’70s proposed a visionary master plan for New York, imposed innovative urban design standards for public and private projects, and enlisted local communities in government decision-making...Mr. Elliott recruited a team of young progressive architects who were frustrated by decades of Robert Moses’ urban renewal by bulldozer diplomacy and by the city’s bureaucratic embrace of drab, Stalinesque architecture for public works. In so doing, he indelibly altered the cityscape.He oversaw the establishment of special zoning districts that preserved midtown theaters, retailers on Fifth Avenue and the historic South Street Seaport from major development and helped deliver the final death knell for the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway, which would have skewered Greenwich Village, a last gasp for Mr. Moses as a city and state public-works power broker."
    The New York Times

Created by Thriley (talk) and 9H48F (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This is more of a comment than a review (I may do a full review later), but I was wondering if a different hook could be proposed here since the current one doesn't really appeal much to people who don't know Moses. Perhaps a hook more specifically about his own accomplishments? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Commenting here because this also caught my attention (NLH5 mentioned this to me off-wiki but the opinions are my own). What exactly does it mean to lead NYC out of the Robert Moses era? Moses was so influential as parks commissioner, TBTA head, and highway planner that any successor in any one of these positions could conceivably "help lead the city out of the Moses era". The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission could have helped done that as well, just because it made the SoHo historic district. My point is that, even with knowledge of who Moses is, the hook is still unfortunately not that clear. Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Thriley: Please respond to the concerns raised above, as it has been a week since the comments. The nomination may be failed if any article or hook concerns are not addressed soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the critique. He of course was part of a movement away from the ideas of Moses and the mega projects. It wouldn’t be right to imply that he was in a position of power in the way Moses was. I’ll have to think of an alternative. Thriley (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • ALT1: ... that Donald H. Elliott's town planning schemes for New York helped to combat poverty? - or something one those lines? Storye book (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed, please, by the above commentators or anyone else? Storye book (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article was moved to mainspace within the required timeframe. It's long enough and new enough at the time of nomination, and a QPQ has been done. There are however some minor article issues that need to be addressed: his date of birth and date of death are both unreferenced in the article. There's also no information about his later life (or indeed anything after 1975). There's also an "External links" section that is empty. Finally, I'm not really a fan of ALT1 either: it's quite vague. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. In response to the above review, I have cited the bmd dates (previously already cited but lumped in with other text and all cited as one). I have added a link into the Ext. links section, which was there waiting for the authority control template to kick in (I don't know if he has a Wikidata number; I'll check). I could not find a source for life after 1975 - maybe he was rich enough to retire. I could only read a part of the NYT article because it's behind a paywall. As for ALT1, it has to match the sources, and vague is what we got. Now, I'll go and check his Wikidata (if any). ETA gottim. His Wikidata number is Q110316787. It's an almost bare page, so I'll add in what I can. Storye book (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there really noting else that could be added to the later life section, including at the very least his death? As for ALT1, I'm still not a fan of it and I would suggest either a rewording or some clarification as to exactly what he did. If it doesn't work out then unfortunately closure may have to be considered. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Narutolovehinata5 I would like to address some of your concerns, but real life is about to interrupt me. I hope to be able to get back to this tomorrow or Wednesday. Somebody please ping me if I have not edited the article by Wednesday? I shall need to do some research, first, of course. Storye book (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Courtesy ping to nominator Thriley to see if they can help address any concerns too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5. For your elucidation and delectation, I give you the very slightly expanded Mister Elliott, who now has a death, two publications, a wife, an affinity with a certain political party, and life after 1973. Oh, and a photo. Enjoy. Storye book (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the expansion. However, the hook's issues still need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
That would be a good idea: perhaps local NYC expert Epicgenius can help out here and check the source too? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding ALT2, the source only tangentially mentions Elliott once: "In the '60's, government was expected to make society better and everybody believed it could do so," said Donald Elliott, who was chairman of the City Planning Commission when the 1969 plan was published. "In the '80's, people are skeptical." I don't believe it directly supports the hook.
As for MoMA, I don't think the museum mentioned in Storye book's link was renamed. Rather, the interview seems to be about the Museum Tower, an apartment tower that was proposed next to MoMA in the 1970s, along with a new wing and a new public gallery there. This involved a lot of controversy because the project involved taking advantage of MoMA's status as a nonprofit museum. Not only could the tower be exempt from real estate taxes, but it would also use the unused air rights above the museum to expand its floor area (that's a whole different thing in itself. Anyway, my point in saying this is that Donald H. Elliott was involved in pushing for developer "incentives", which allowed developers to expand their buildings in exchange for some public benefit - like the Theater District special zoning area, where office buildings like Paramount Plaza got bonus floor area in exchange for including a theater at the base. I think he was involved in one of the early plans for redeveloping 42nd Street as well during the late 70s/early 80s. Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Re the source for ALT2 - I was previously able to read the contents of that source, before the paywall came down. Now that paywall is coming down quickly and I cannot read it at all, so I must take your word for the fact that it does not support the hook. I am puzzled, though, as what I read did support the hook. I am wondering now, whether I had been looking at another source which mentions the skyline thing in relation to Elliott? I have checked all the non-New York Times sources for the skyline thing, and cannot find it, so I must have seen it behind the paywall somehow. The article's creator must have found it too, because it is in the article. Sorry I cannot help further. Re the Museum of Modern Art - thank you for the information. It doesn't look promising for a hook, though. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: Regarding the NY Times source, it should be accessible through ProQuest on The Wikipedia Library, if you want to verify that. (You could also check to see if the Times article was archived on the Wayback Machine or something else.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Epicgenius. I have accessed the NYT source via the WP Library, and added the relevant quote to ALT2 above. That bit doesn't mention Elliott's name, but since he was running that Planning Commission, we can say that as director he helped do what the Planning Commission did. Sometimes it's necessary to read the whole source, because a page search isn't enough. I shall add the quote to the citation in the article. Storye book (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't there need to be a direct statement saying that Elliott was involved with what happened? Because without a direct source ALT2 will probably need to either be reworked or dropped entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment, Narutolovehinata5. No there would not, unless the article were intended for five-year-olds. In the same article it says that Elliott was chairman of the Planning Commission in 1969. We also know that he was director in 1969 from other sources anyway. Whatever the Planning Commission did in 1969, Elliot was therefore responsible for it. He carried the buck, as does POTUS for the decisions of the US government. The principle is the same. If you run the show, then you get the credit as well as the liability for what the show does. Understanding that is a matter of commonsense. I don't see how any intelligent person could read that article thoroughly, and say that Elliott had nothing to do with the 1969 plan which the article claims changed the skyline. Storye book (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 30[edit]

Chinese dama

  • ... that the Chinese damas, which literally means "Chinese big mamas", caused China to pass India in becoming the biggest purchaser of gold? Source:
    1. Sim, Shuan (2014-04-01). "China's Unstoppable Gold-Buying 'Aunties' Move Onto Bitcoins". Jing Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-12-21. Retrieved 2021-12-21.

      The article notes: "Eschewing the volatile stock markets, dama prefer the stability of hard assets and the ability to hand wealth down to their children, but their fervor is causing an unintentional side effect—as reported by Want China Times, these eagle-eyed women “have been credited with driving China’s gold market and the 28 percent global fluctuation in gold prices” in 2013. Their buying spree resulted in a 41.4 percent national increase in gold consumption last year, leading China to surpass India as the world’s largest gold consumer."

    2. "Dama". China Internet Information Center. 2013-12-27. Archived from the original on 2021-12-21. Retrieved 2021-12-21.

      The article notes: "Dama, literally means 'big mama,' referring mainly to married women between the age 40-60."

5x expanded by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 10:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment, I'd suggest "... that big mamas caused China in becoming the biggest purchaser of gold?" (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's a much better hook, thanks Tbhotch (talk · contribs)! I'd make a small change to the hook to this:

    ALT1: ... that big mamas caused China to become the biggest purchaser of gold?

    Cunard (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2022 (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 Thank you for this very comprehensive article on the dama. In response to the above conversation, I have struck ALT0. ALT1 is fine, and is sourced here and in the article by the same citation.

  • I have one puzzle - that DYK Check says that the article is neither new nor recently 5x expanded. However the article history says that just before Cunard started editing on 30 December 2021 the character count was 4628, and that the count today is 34,902. That looks like a satisfactory 5x expansion to me. BlueMoonset please could you check this for me? Have I misread something? Thank you. If the 5x expansion is fine, then this nomination should be good to go. Update: this review is still incomplete; I shall explain shortly. Storye book (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Storye book, DYKcheck operates on the theory, which doesn't always apply, the articles grow over time. So it checks all the way back to the beginning, even when the article was in Draft or use space, to see its highest prior size, and 5x from there. In fact, it's how big the article was prior to the recent expansion that matters, even if that is smaller than previous high water marks. In this case, as you note, the article started at 4628, which would require an expansion to 23140, and the count is actually 34902, which is a 7.5x expansion, more than enough to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you, BlueMoonset. So from now on I'll make sure I always check the article History page for 5x expansions. Storye book (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: Although my question about length has now been resolved, I have had a re-think about my above review, and I have seen another issue. I shall return shortly and explain. My apologies for any inconvenience caused because I missed something earlier. Storye book (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

My apologies for hesitating a little while before explaining this re-think. It is a seismic change to my attitude to this article, and I wanted to be sure that I was doing the right thing. I am not one of those who are happy to delete articles or to drastically diminish them, and because I appreciate the great effort that it takes to produce a well-written article, I do not like to heavily criticise a creator's work. Therefore, please be patient with my attitude here. Let's think of it in terms of getting things right, and not of any attempt by me to destroy the article.

I have now realised that the general tone and attitude of the article is one that reflects the kind of misogyny towards older women that Western history has seen hundreds of years ago with the concept of witches, and more recently with the concept that older women who knit are stupid, useless, non-persons, with the skill of knitting itself being diminished in the process. That kind of generalisation is always going to be a lie, and in the case of knitting the critics themselves tend to be those who cannot knit themselves, it being an acquired skill requiring mental skills as well as physical ones. Misogyny (in my opinion) is a process of both unfair generalisation, and of intentional diminishment.

This article is carefully written, and as far as I can see, the creator has made a great effort to be fair, to use authoritative citations, and to cite everything conscientiously. The problem, then, is what has been left out. For example (re China and the Chinese diaspora only, of course) omissions include:

  • The percentage and number of the entire Chinese female population who are of middle age.
  • The percentage of those women who actually do town-square dancing.
  • The percentage of middle-aged town-square dancers who have controlled and turned on loud sound systems which have upset residents in town squares.
  • The percentage of middle-aged Chinese females who live in towns, and have enough disposable income to buy gold
  • The percentage of rural middle-aged Chinese women who are not in a position to purchase gold, dress and dye their hair like the woman in the picture and do town-square dancing

I think that an examination of the above would reveal that the much discussed dama image represents only a tiny fraction of middle aged Chinese women, and (I'm guessing) represents very few middle-aged women in the Chinese diaspora.

Another way to balance the neutrality of this article would be to look at the percentages of other types of middle-aged Chinese women. For example:

  • The percentage of middle-aged Chinese woman who are established businesswomen, including rural farming and village-industry women, women running businesses in towns, and businesswomen among the diaspora. This, I believe, is quite a large percentage. They give a very different picture as far as I am aware, because (at least the ones that I have met) would have used the cheap-gold era to purchase bullion for profit or investment, since most of the cost of gold artefacts is the cost of labour, not the basic cost of the metal. The article makes the damas look stupid for just purchasing gold artefacts as gifts, and anyway most of the artefact purchasing would have benefited the labourers and manufacturers, not the sale of gold itself. True businesswomen and investors purchase bullion, even if they can only purchase tiny bits of bullion.
  • The percentage of middle-aged Chinese women who are educated. The damas of this article are not credited with education, but are credited with the activities of uneducated and simple people. I have met many educated, middle-aged Chinese woman (one of them is my neighbour who has a degree from Oxford) and none of them look or behave like the damas in your article.

Now, I am not saying that the dama type does not exist, but the concept of the dama does not come from women who fit the dama type. It comes from outsiders who are not like them, and who are more likely to be men than women, because every Chinese woman is going to be middle-aged eventually and they must be aware of that.

Perhaps the most important point here is that Chinese women of the dama type are not given a voice. There is only one commentator (Teng Wei) hidden away at the bottom of the article which says that "It's ageist, classist — and it's time to stop".

Conclusion: I don't think that I can pass this article for DYK until its neutrality is balanced to the extent that if any middle-aged Chinese intelligent businesswoman were to read the article, they would not feel that all Chinese women of middle age were being generalised as potentially a dama who is potentially some sort of uneducated clown. If you are happy to adjust the article for neutrality, I would be happy to wait until you have completed that task, and to re-assess it. I repeat that the article is beautifully-written, and I can see the excellent work that has gone into it. The problem is just that there is so much missing that it is unbalanced on the side of misogyny.

I must add that all of the above, that I have written today, is my opinion. Should you wish to dismiss me as a reviewer, and request another reviewer, I shall respect that. Storye book (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article "is unbalanced on the side of misogyny". Most of the coverage in the article is neutral or positive towards damas. When I include negative media coverage about damas, I balance it with analysis from scholars who condemn that negative coverage:
  1. The "Later meaning: negative connotation" section: "Li cited two extensively reported examples of how the media 'distort[s] the Dama image'. The first story took place in a Beijing street in 2013 when a dama was widely and unfairly criticized for allegedly trying to extort a youthful man who was from another country for making her fall. It turned out that the man had engaged in wrong-way driving and red light running and had exploded in an anger at the dama he had struck who had been obeying traffic laws in crossing the street. The second story took place in a Wuhan subway in 2015 when a dama struck a young woman. Li speculated that individuals refer to the dama with a disdainful and mocking tone since they despise the wealthy and want to protest against wealth inequality."
  2. The "Later meaning: negative connotation" section: "Writing in The New York Times, editor Wang Junling said that it was incorrect to stereotype and there is not even a 'clear definition' of what a dama is. Wang wrote, 'The various deeds of the aforementioned damas have no logical connection. As long as middle-aged and elderly women in China do something different, they can be labeled as such.'"
  3. The "Square dancing" section: According to Teng Wei, the scholar, the media was exaggerating the dancer conflicts, which builds on the dama lore. She bemoaned that older women who were merely seeking friendship and physical activity were being baselessly cast as "a malignant social force that everyone — even officials — must tiptoe around".
  4. The lead and the "Comparison to other subcultures" section: "Reflecting on the double standards, she concluded, "When we use dama as an insult, what we're really doing is suggesting that there's something inherently wrong with being a middle-aged woman. It's ageist, classist — and it's time to stop"
The article includes analysis explaining why the Chinese damas purchased gold (the "Social and economic context for gold purchases" section) and why they are behaving differently from their predecessors (the "Social and economic context" section). Regarding "The article makes the damas look stupid for just purchasing gold artefacts as gifts", these sections explain why the damas purchased gold and make no judgment on whether they "look stupid" for purchasing gold.
Regarding finding percentages like "The percentage of those women who actually do town-square dancing" and "The percentage of rural middle-aged Chinese women who are not in a position to purchase gold, dress and dye their hair like the woman in the picture and do town-square dancing", I have been unable to find any sources that discuss this information in the context of damas, so including this information (even if I could find sources for it outside the context of damas) would violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Synthesis. I agree that the article would be significantly improved if such information could be included but I did not find sourcing to support this information in the context of damas.
The modern usage of the term "dama" is not for referring to all Chinese middle-aged women. It is used to describe (and frequently insult) a subset of Chinese middle-aged women. There is no universally agreed upon definition of "dama" which could explain why there are no sources for all of these percentages. From Claudia Huang's article in Journal of Aging Studies:

Shortly before leaving Chengdu, the capital of China's southwestern Sichuan province at the end of 2017, I sent an informal survey to some friends on the popular Chinese messaging platform WeChat. This survey contained only one question: “how would you describe a dama?” ... The differences in people's responses did not catch my attention as much as the fact that nearly everyone who received the survey offered an answer. The specifics varied, but each person held a clear and developed picture of a dama in his or her mind's eye. On another occasion, my friend Xia— an educated and well-traveled woman in her late twenties, told me that it's impossible to pin down an exact description of a dama because “they like to dress differently for different occasions,” but that “you know one when you see one.”

Regarding "Perhaps the most important point here is that Chinese women of the dama type are not given a voice", I reviewed and cited numerous news articles, journal articles, and books. Some of these authors may have been written by middle-aged Chinese women (I did not check their ages). But I could not find a single source where the author(s) self-identified themselves as "damas" so I cannot call them damas in the article. "Dama" has become a pejorative term like Karen (slang) which may be why people generally don't self-identify.

Although I do not agree that the article is "unbalanced on the side of misogyny", I agree that like all Wikipedia articles, the article has a lot of room for improvement. I agree that "the much discussed dama image represents only a tiny fraction of middle aged Chinese women, and (I'm guessing) represents very few middle-aged women in the Chinese diaspora". There was no intention for the Wikipedia article to convey this message. Perhaps some of the wording could be made more clear that this is a stereotype and a pejorative term that in no way represents all Chinese middle-aged women, so I welcome examples of sentences that convey the wrong message and should be reworded. Perhaps the article can be expanded to include more perspectives from damas themselves. But to do that, sourcing has to be found to support this information.

Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you for going to the trouble of writing your long and careful reply. I had already seen the examples and quotations that you gave in that reply. However, if the existing summary of the article represents the whole, then there is something wrong with the balance in my opinion. You say you have insufficient sources for the provision of balance, and you ask me to suggest new wording for you. This is a long and complex article, and I am supposed to be reviewing it, not re-writing such a large piece. If you are unable to improve the balance of the article for whatever reason, I feel that I cannot find it in my conscience to pass it for DYK as it stands. I suggest that you find another reviewer. All the best. Storye book (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
However, if the existing summary of the article represents the whole, then there is something wrong with the balance in my opinion. – the article complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, which says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The article fairly represents what the sources say about damas. I wish there were many more sources like the scholar Teng Wei that made statements like, "When we use dama as an insult, what we're really doing is suggesting that there's something inherently wrong with being a middle-aged woman. It's ageist, classist — and it's time to stop". That way, I could write more about why it is is bigoted to use the term to stereotype and to insult middle-aged women. Beyond what I have already included in the article, I did not find this in my survey of the literature. Per Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, without more sources, I cannot add more information about why it is bigoted to use the term to stereotype and to insult middle-aged women. If any editor finds a source I overlooked that discusses why "dama" is a bigoted term, I would be happy to add it. I have searched extensively for this information and did not find it.

You say you have insufficient sources for the provision of balance, and you ask me to suggest new wording for you. This is a long and complex article, and I am supposed to be reviewing it, not re-writing such a large piece. If you are unable to improve the balance of the article for whatever reason, I feel that I cannot find it in my conscience to pass it for DYK as it stands. – I went through the article myself and do not find anything unbalanced or biased. I asked you to point out any sentences you find to be unbalanced or biased in case I overlooked anything.

I suggest that you find another reviewer. – yes, I would like another reviewer. I cannot act on the suggestions made so far without violating Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Cunard (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 31[edit]

Avraham Tamir

Daniel Efrat
Daniel Efrat

Moved to mainspace by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 05:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Hi Kingsif, review follows (I have only reviewed ALT1, so that both articles can be run):
  • Avraham Tamir: article created 31 December and exceeds minimum length; article is well written; I found no issue with overly close paraphrasing in a sample of the English-language sources I could access;
  • Daniel Efrat: article created 7 January and exceeds minimum length; is well written but lead needs expanding otherwise it can be tagged with Template:Lead too short which would disqualify it; I found no issue with overly close paraphrasing in a sample of the English-language sources I could access;
  • Hook etc.' I interesting and mentioned in the Efrat article; I've removed "renowned" from the hook as it is a judgement and the word is not mentioned in Tamir's article; I can sort of (through Google Translate) verify the conscription part but can't work out how the grandparent relationship is established. Is it through the family tree you link? I couldn't find a Daniel Efrat on it. Also could you confirm that the tree is a reliable source and not user generated? Two QPQs have been carried out - Dumelow (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dumelow: I assumed the relationship was sourced in the ynet source, as it seems to be used to source the information at the Hebrew Wikipedia article (unfortunately, he.wiki still uses the format of no inline refs and a bibliography, so it's hard to decipher what is for what; that is the only source I took from there, though). I've just combed it, and it doesn't seem to. It does, like the one about conscription, mention Ovad Efrat as Daniel's father so I'll look and see if there was presumably some news about him marrying Tamir's daughter... The family trees, based on what our article and the website say, seem to be created and maintained by the Museum of the Jewish People. (They changed the database at some point in the last year or so, I had to fix a bunch of links, so I don't think it's complete, but hopefully a useful resource when it will be complete.) Googling in Hebrew on an English keyboard isn't the easiest, but I hope I'll find something soon. Will expand the Daniel Efrat lead. Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dumelow: Ok, I have done the searches I can think of, and nothing concrete on Tamir and Efrat's relationship. I'll ask at the Hebrew Wikipedia later, and come up with other hooks. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm also happy to propose separate hooks for the articles if that would help. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this Kingsif, happy to leave on hold while enquiries are made. Give me a ping when sorted or if you want to look at other hooks - Dumelow (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 2[edit]

Zero-COVID

Source2:"How much longer can China keep up its zero-Covid strategy?". The Guardian. 2022-01-01. Retrieved 2022-01-02.

    • Comment: New article

Created by Novem Linguae (talk), Moxy (talk), Thucydides411 (talk), and Arcahaeoindris (talk). Nominated by Moxy at 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg DYKcheck says that the current version of the article has only '1386 characters (221 words) "readable prose size"'. That falls below the DYK minimum of 1,500 characters.
    @Moxy and Novem Linguae: I am sure that it can readily be expanded to pass the threshold. If and when that happens, please ping me and I will complete the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    BrownHairedGirl. Thanks to Thucydides411 starting an expansion, we're currently at 524 words, 3536 characters. Feel free to resume your review. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Novem Linguae: that's good news, but I think it will be difficult to review while it is being actively expanded. Please can you or @Thucydides411 ping me when it has stabilised again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: I'll ping you once the article is a bit more stable. I'm still adding content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, @Thucydides411.
    Moxy's correction[5] of the hook fact is welcome, but the fact that the first hook was wrong suggests that the initial nomination was premature. It would be helpful if all 3 editors could review the article before a full DYK review is started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not wrong...some like to list the distinctions of Greater China ....so was amended as so.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    The unualified term "China" usually refers to the PRC, not Taiwan. So it was at best misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    P.S. Suggest adding myself and Thucydides411 to the nomination, if appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Novem Linguae:: done[6]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the current hook is accurate - Macau is still pursuing a zero-covid strategy too, isn't it?[7] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but that source doesn't appear to say that Macau is still pursing zero-COVID. My quick search for the word Macau didn't indicate anything like that in the vicinity of the word. Can you clarify with a quote? More generally, I agree that we need to tighten up the hook. That is one of the reasons this DYK is on hold. We had one article that said XYZ are the only countries pursuing COVID, but as we expand the article we are finding additional countries. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    The source I linked says "Since the early days of the covid-19 pandemic, China’s aim has been to eliminate the coronavirus entirely from within the mainland’s borders. Hong Kong and Macau have similar strategies." The alternate hook you suggested below seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hook #2: Proposal for new hook that has no danger of being factually incorrect: ...that places such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have pursued a zero-COVID strategy? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. New hook seems to correct the issues. ––FormalDude talk 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Bloomberg reported this morning that Omicron has ruined Hong Kong's Zero COVID [8]. Zero COVID is just a political slogan and the article gives undue weight to this political angle. CutePeach (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Zero Covid is a ongoing response for COVID-19, so this article can be updated. I think it's ok. Thingofme (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl. Hey there. It's been a week or so. Probably worth taking another look at this. I proposed a new hook above that avoids some of the issues with the first one. Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey BrownHairedGirl. Sorry for the double ping. Just wanted to follow up and see if you had some time to work on this. I think this may be ready to approve using hook #2, but I'll leave that up to your good judgment. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @Novem Linguae, and sorry for my slow reply.
    I took a quick look at the article, and it seems that you have all done great work. It now has 4928 words and over 140 references ... so it has grown from being a stub when nominated to something more like B-class. Well done!
    However, that also means that the task of reviewing it for DYK has grown from being a 20-minute task to a whole day's work. And I am sorry to say that I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote a whole day to do, and I won't sign off as reviewed an article which I have not properly scrutinised.
    So I think it's best that I bow out, and someone else does the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Thank you for letting us know. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Naren Chandra Das

* ... that Indian army havildar Naren Chandra Das escorted the 14th Dalai Lama to safety in India when the monk made a 13-day trek across the himalayas dressed as a soldier to evade the Chinese troops? Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/naren-chandra-das-the-last-indian-soldier-who-helped-dalai-lama-escape-has-died-2682054

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 01:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC). * ALT1: ... that Indian army havildar Naren Chandra Das escorted the 14th Dalai Lama to safety in India when the monk made a 13-day trek across the himalayas, in disguise, to evade the Chinese troops? Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/naren-chandra-das-the-last-indian-soldier-who-helped-dalai-lama-escape-has-died-2682054


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

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Was Das really directed to cross the International border as stated in the article? The phrase is not sourced and in the Times of India source it says they received him on Indian soil. I guess a source for Indian soldiers accompanying the Dalai Lama on the 13 day trek would be good.

Ktin how about something like... was part of the havildar group who welcomed the Dalai Lama at the Indian border after his 13 day long flight from the Chinese army?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Paradise Chronicle:: Thanks for you review. I think we can go with ALT0. I am quoting from the NDTV article -- The Tibetan spiritual leader arrived in India as a young monk after a 13-day trek through the Himalayas disguised as a soldier to evade detection by Chinese troops. Naren Chandra Das, who died Monday at his residence in Assam, was 22 at the time and had just completed his training with the Assam Rifles, the Indian Army's oldest paramilitary force. Along with six other soldiers, he escorted the monk to Lumla in Arunachal Pradesh on March 31, 1959. I think this should be good to validate ALT0 as it is written. Please let me know of your thoughts. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • As to the sources I have access to, they didn't escort the Dalai Lama on his 13-day journey to India. They were only aware of the arrival of the Dalai Lama a few days before.[1] The Assam Rifles welcomed him on Indian soil the same day he arrived [2] [3] and escorted him IN India.[4]Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this note @Paradise Chronicle:. Pardon me if I am stating this incorrectly, I think that this is what ALT0 is suggesting, right? Happy to tweak the words if needed - the first part says that the escort was IN India. The second part refers to the overall journey as referenced in the NDTV link. Let me know. Ktin (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If we need to substitute the word 'when' with 'after', we can do that. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah but as to me, welcoming someone as one of several people is not notable enough for a hook compared to a hook on a 13-day trek/escape of the Dalai Lama. If you want to create an article on the escape let me know and I'll review it. I have actually caught some interest on the subject and would like to help creating such an article, reviewing this hook, I have read about the letter the Dalai Lama received which caused the escape, how Mao te Tung reacted to it, initially letting him go, then trying to prevent the escape etc. this I'd see as an article worth of a hook. What do you think?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I still think this is interesting. I would not characterize Das' actions as "welcomed" but more as "escorted to safety" which is what the WP:RS sources are suggesting. If you want to add any information, please do. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have created an article on the Dalai Lama's escape from China now. Maybe we can think of a hook more interesting. I am thinking on a hook which includes the State Oracle or the crossing the Brahmaputra river before reaching India. What are your thoughtsParadise Chronicle (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have adapted the hook as Ktin likes it, but now we need another reviewer who approves this.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks Paradise Chronicle. Much appreciated. Btw, nice work on getting that other article going! Looks promising! Ktin (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 3[edit]

Red Clay State Historic Park

Improved to Good Article status by Bneu2013 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

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

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg There is a citation for the hook in the DYK nomination, but not in the article. Also the QPQ is pending. Otherwise the nomination looks ok. The article passes the Earwig copyvio test. I've made some very minor copyedits to it. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @Bahnfrend: - Was recommended to remove the citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE during the GA review. Multiple aspects of this is cited in the body. Started QPQ here. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Bneu2013: - Sorry for the slow response. According to MOS:LEADCITE, "... there is not ... an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. ... The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." The true position is, simply, that citations are commonly omitted from leads because the lead is an overview of often more specific statements that are made, with citations, in the body of the article. The problem with this article, as it presently stands, is that there is no statement in its body asserting specifically that the Park 'was the last capital of the Cherokee Nation', and therefore also no inline citation for any such assertion. To fix that problem, you just have to insert such an assertion, with inline citation, at an appropriate place in the body of the article. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Bneu2013: Do you plan on citing that one assertion so that this nomination can finally move on? SL93 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Die ersten Menschen

Created by Grimes2 (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you for an intriguing article - I think we all want full details of the objectionable bit of the plot now. With photographs. (joke). Just a couple of issues: (1) The first paragraph of the History section needs a citation at the end, and the Roles section needs citations. (2) According to the article, Stephan completed his composition in 1914, and the poetry performance was banned in 1912. So that would make ALT0 untrue. However, if you would like to change the hook's wording to something like "Die ersten Menschen was already being composed as an opera by Rudi Stephan" or "Rudi Stephan was already composing the opera Die ersten Menschen", that would match the article's information. When those two issues are sorted, this one should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 5[edit]

Wizard Pharmacy

Created by Hammad Chaudhry (talk). Self-nominated at 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I suggest this alternate hook, if it's OK with Hammad Chaudhry the article does meet the other non-hook criteria—
ALT1: that Wizard Pharmacy, also a clinic, both issued and dispensed the first electronic prescription in Western Australia?
Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammad Chaudhry (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including proposed ALT1. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for this article about a pharmacy chain. Just one issue: The end of the first para of the History section is not cited. If you have no citation for that last sentence, then please remove the sentence to the talk page until you or someone else can find a citation. When that issue is resolved, this nomination should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I was not able to find any citation for that last sentence. I removed that.
  • Thank you too Storye book. How do I know when it appeared on the "main page"?
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from queue 3 because of an undisclosed paid tag, per this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Osteogenesis imperfecta

Blue sclerae
Blue sclerae

Improved to Good Article status by Psiĥedelisto (talk). Self-nominated at 02:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Red XN - ?
Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you for this very comprehensive article. You probably will not remember the large tomes called Home Doctor which people kept in their houses up to about 1939. They had all the known symptoms of common conditions in alphabetical order, and you were supposed to diagnose yourself and then follow the brief and possibly ambiguous advice. They were a paradise for hypochondriacs, but in fact anyone who skimmed through them would end up wondering whether they had yellow fever, black death and all the rest of it. Well, your article is a great one for that effect ... fascinating! (just joking).

So, now the serious bit. There are some short, standard medical phrases which match the sources, but I do not believe that as such they count as copyvio. Two issues remain: (1) The QPQ that you have linked above is incomplete; please finish it? (2) The article has five paragraphs which have no citation at the end (although they do contain at least one citation in the middle). In such a long and mostly cited article on a less serious subject such as popular culture, I would not worry about that. But every sentence is of serious import here, so please could you either remove those uncited bits, or cite them? When these two issues are resolved, this nomination should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 6[edit]

International Habitation Module

Created by Seddon (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Red XN - Not interesting to a broad audience.

QPQ: Red XN - x
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I thought the original hook could have been interesting, but maybe it's because I have an interest in astronomy and spaceflight, and I do understand where the concerns about lack of interest to a broad audience are coming from. With that said, perhaps a hook about it being the main habitat module of the Lunar Gateway or a hook about it being planned to launch at the same time as a crewed Orion spacecraft would work? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction

  • ... that Children's Fantasy Literature was the first work on the genre's 500-year history? Source: doi:10.1353/uni.2017.0034: "Michael Levy and Farah Mendlesohn trace the development of fantasy literature for children from its roots in sixteenth-century fable and folklore to its manifestations in the present day teen market. [...] the book is the first to put the study of children's literature and the study of the fantastic in extended dialogue."
    • Comment: My fifth DYK nom, so no QPQ needed

Created by Olivaw-Daneel (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Review underway Bruxton (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg The article is long enough and new enough. Hook is interesting and supported by the reference. The claims in the introduction are supported with references after being restated in the article. Good job there. i.e. "sixteenth to twenty-first centuries" in the body, and "over a period of 500 years" in the intro.
Sources: 1st reference is an editorial. It does not present anything controversial so it is likely ok to use. In the synopsis section the un-cited end of the 2nd paragraph says: "They also identify a renewed sensibility of Englishness in post-war fantasy; and more generally, indigenous myth and folklore in Australian and Canadian fantasy." <--is this a personal interpretation? synthesis? etc. Finally, I was also going to question the validity of the (SFADB) awards - but you wrote a wikipedia article about SFADB... which begins to feel like a Walled Garden. I am not seeing organization oversight on the SFADB website and they display Amazon books for sale on the awards page. Bruxton (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
That sentence summarizes an entire chapter; the italic format of Englishness is straight from the book. I've rephrased to (hopefully) make that a bit more clear. Btw, no citations needed in Synopsis per MOS:NOVELPLOT; I've only cited direct quotes.
The bottom-left corner of any SFADB page will show a copyright by the Locus Science Fiction Foundation. Also, if you go to Locus' website and mouse over "Resources", you'll find a link to SFADB.
Displaying book-buying links is I think a wide-spread feature; you'll even find it in the awards' own websites. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
(Forgot to ping​.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Several of the references are behind a paywall, like this one - I assume good faith. I have a comment which I hope is constructive. This article has a vocabulary pitched to a highly educated audience. It has a Flesch Kincaid score of 30-50 which is summarized as, "Difficult to read". Rather than hold up the nomination, I am going to ask someone else to take on the review. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comment. This test says it's "easily understood by 13 to 14 year olds"; regardless, I'd love any specific suggestions for improvement. And I think this is the correct icon for a new review:
    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not use the URL method, input the text. "Flesch Reading Ease score: 45.1 Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read." "Gunning Fog: 13.3 Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read." etc. The site measures (7) readability formulas, and scored your text: "difficult to read". I am not saying dumb it down, but there is some sesquipedalianism. Regardng the red tick: I did not use it because it says: "Article issues have been resolved and is ready for a new review." But perhaps it is appropriate anyway. Bruxton (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree that any redundancies should be eliminated, but just an observation about the usefulness of that readability test. I checked some of our literature Good and Featured Articles — the Reception sections of Ursula K. Le Guin, A Wizard of Earthsea, The Tombs of Atuan — and their scores all range in the 40s; pretty much identical to this article's Reception. Perhaps the takeaway is that literature articles tend to be harder to read. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]

Tek Fog

  • ... that the web application Tek Fog was used by BJP to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: the app Tek Fog is used by users to "amplify right-wing propaganda to a domestic audience." The Indian news outlet also claimed the app had links to India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Deutsche Welle
    • ALT1: ... that the web application Tek Fog was used to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: Same as above.
    • ALT2: ... that according to The Wire, the web application Tek Fog was used to amplify right wing propaganda among Indians? Source: Same as above.
    • Reviewed: Exempt
    • Comment: Page was on AfD so DYK was out of consideration in that period. AfD closed today as keep so nominated for DYK today.

Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 12:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment This cannot go unattributed, AT ALL. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The contents of the article are currently contested, as the author is aware. It is requested that the DYK nomination is not accepted till outstanding issues are resolvedCaptain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I am not sure the last comment by User:CapnJackSp has been made in good faith. Several politically motivated IP users first tried to delete the article. AfD was closed as Keep. And now this guy is asking for an indefenite hold on on flimsy grounds. The article has 29 mentions of Wire and it is sufficiently attributed.Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Don't confuse me with other editors. You haven't added attribution to the very first sentence of the article. I can say more but this needs to be fixed first. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bulli Bai case

  • ... that app Bulli Bai was used to create, an online mock auction of prominent women, to harass them? Source: DW
    • ALT1: ... that creators of the Bulli Bai app, for an online mock auction of women, had used Sikh names to mislead people? Source: "Names related to the Sikh community were used to make it look like these Twitter handles had been created by persons from that community," the police release issued in the evening said. The women who were targeted were Muslim, so there was a possibility that it could have created "enmity between two communities" and led to "breach of public peace", it said. [10] [11]
    • ALT2: ... that members of the alt-right neo-Nazi groups, created the Bulli Bai app, for an online mock auction of Indian women? Source: "Police have linked the creators of both apps to the online alt-right group “Trads” that derives inspiration from neo-Nazi online movements. Vice
    • Reviewed: Exempt

Created by Venkat TL (talk) and Ainty Painty (talk). Nominated by Venkat TL (talk) at 08:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment Not reviewing it right now. Just asking if the lede could be more precise? Can citations be taken out and the lede be reconstructed. Few things in the body go uncited. I don't think the names of accused should be bolded this way? ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not think this belongs at the main page - NOTCENSORED applies but this is way too vile. Thanks for creating the article! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 9[edit]

St. Sylvester, Schwabing

  • ... that St. Sylvester is a Catholic church which combines the old village church of Schwabing, now part of Munich, and a 20th-century expansion under one roof? Source: several
    • Reviewed: to come

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg It's new enough, it's long enough. Only part of the article is cited. The hook is supported, except for the following facts: It is a Catholic church, and that the village has become part of Munich. It's neutral, and QPQ is not done, that I can see.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for looking, Wehwalt, and sorry that you caught me having just translated, before finding references, and then having to nominate, and then on vacation. Grimes2 found several refs (added to credits), and it looks better, but I'm not quite there yet. There's a complete book on the subject, but I don't have it, and its review raises some doubt regarding who was the sculptor of the famous annunciation which the German article says is by Günther. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    I have another QPQ that can be used from Template:Did you know nominations/Pero Pirker. I would like to donate it for this nomination if Gerda Arendt doesn't mind. SL93 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    That's sweet, thank you, SL93! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 10[edit]

Holger Mühlbauer

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Nomination should be put on hold until the deletion discussion has been completed. With that said, the hook as currently written isn't very interesting. He's the managing director of a company an organization that's not very well-known, so the hook doesn't raise much interest. Right now the article is also lacking details about aspects of his life and reads more like a resume in prose form, so finding an alternative hook fact may prove difficult unless the article is expanded further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm sorry to say that you haven't read the article well enough. TeleTrusT is not a company but a nationwide association of the key players in internet security, or "German and international competence network in IT security". It would make the hook a bit long to say so, but if it's misunderstood we may have to do that. - Some people want to have there private life away from the media, and I'd respect that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the hook as currently written is not interesting to a broad audience. Most people have never even heard of this organization and I imagine it's not that well-known in Germany either. To the average reader, the hook reads like "person is an executive at organization X", which by itself doesn't make for an interesting hook. Can something else be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    ALT: ... that Holger Mühlbauer, who has worked for technical standards including ISO, became managing director of TeleTrusT, the German and international competence network in IT security, in 2009?
    Did you know that the reason this article exists is you, because I missed the deadline to nominate TeleTrusT, and was too proud to ask for mercy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest here, I don't think this hook fact about Mühlbauer being a managing director is working out since the ALT doesn't really address the main issue of the hook fact (him being a director in an organization) not being innately interesting to a broad audience. If more information could be added about career, perhaps that could also be a starting point for other hooks. One possible path could be a focus on the ISO aspect, since the ISO is much more well-known internationally. In any case, another issue with the article right now is that it is in need of copyediting: there's a typo in the article ("brand evaluationa" instead of "brand evaluation"), and there seems to be an excessive use of quotation marks for proper nouns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I wonder why you don't correct an obvious typo, instead of writing a long sentence here. I fixed that "evaluations". I'm unsure how to mark project names, such as "Brand evaluation", to distinguish from proper nouns. I'll word a more ISO hook in case the article is kept, but otherwise why bother? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 11[edit]

Isabel Leighton

Created by Whitsunderland (talk). Self-nominated at 02:30, 12 January 2022 (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 QPQ not neccessary as it is the editor's first nomination. Article is new enough and long enough, neutral and plagiarism free and it is thoroughly referenced (apart from one - if you could just add a reference there that would be great). Hook is OK, but I wonder if there's something a bit hookier to catch attention? Maybe something that reflects her really wide range of interests? It was really interesting to read about her extraordinary life - thanks for the work you've done to share her life! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a ping @Whitsunderland: as it's really easy to miss DYK things Lajmmoore (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I will ask if anyone wants to propose an alt hook. The current one is interesting and correct, but has the potential to cause outcry over removal of rights. There is the possibility it was intended to be so deliberately provocative. I will try to propose an alt myself if nobody else wants to. Kingsif (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Kingsif: - I’m uninvolved here, and my thoughts are that if this (or similar content) isn’t the hook then we’ve kind of failed, as the content in the hook above is basically the most important part of the article, and it’s interesting, and it’s rated PG. starship.paint (exalt) 14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of hooks are not the most important part of the article. It's not a failure to omit the in brief of an article, and especially when taking away the context of the article puts such a brief in a grey area. Kingsif (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Apart from being confusingly and ambiguously written, the original hook is misleading because it says the court ruled against British drivers specifically, when so far as I can determine, the ruling applies to the EU generally, not just the British. So the hook needs a rewrite, I will try to come up with one a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: It's been a few days, have you been able to think of a new suggestion yet? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 14[edit]

Lucifer on the Sofa

  • ... that the COVID-19 pandemic caused Lucifer on the Sofa to become Spoon's most time-consuming album to record? Source: Rolling Stone - "Spoon, whose members are scattered across Austin, Brooklyn, and Los Angeles, have been forced to sit on a nearly complete album for six months and counting — and they have no idea when they’ll be able to gather in person to finish it. “This is definitely the longest we’ve ever spent on a record,” Daniel says."
    • ALT1: ... that although it was released today, Spoon originally expected that their tenth album, Lucifer on the Sofa, would be released in the fall of 2020? Source: Rolling Stone - "By early March, they thought they had a shot at finishing the album in time to release it this fall; when the shutdown began, they hoped they could reconvene later in the spring and stick to that schedule. But as the pandemic raged on, those hopes fell apart, as did a later plan to finish the album over the summer."
    • ALT2: ... that while recording their tenth album, Lucifer on the Sofa, Spoon wanted to replicate their sound as a live band in studio form? Source: Pitchfork - "Extensive touring behind that album made the band realize they preferred the live versions of those tracks to the recorded ones. ... The quintet enlisted producers Mark Rankin, Justin Raisen, and Dave Fridmann, and aimed to capture the excitement of a band playing together in a room rather than strategically piecing songs together.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dean Whitehead
    • Comment: Special occasion request for February 11, the album's release day.

Converted from a redirect by Aria1561 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

  • I shall review this. (Please note I am liable to be interrupted today, so you may see several saves of a half-finished review. Please be patient.) Storye book (talk)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you for a nice article about a new album. Hooks are repeated in the article, and citations bear out there. I have one hesitation - the final paragraph contains several announcements of forthcoming sales promotions for the album. I am aware that past promotions for records and albums are OK in articles, because those promotions have ended. However, announcements of forthcoming promotions are a different case. I would like a second opinion on this. BlueMoonset? theleekycauldron? When that issue is resolved, I believe this nom should be good to go. ETA I do not agree that the nomination should be published on the album's release date 11 February, because that would count as advertising/promotion. Please see the bolded section of BlueMoonset's comment below: the final paragraph needs to be re-written so that it is not promotional (advertising not allowed), and so that it does not predict definite dates (future predictions can change). Storye book (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @Storye book: hmmm, I'd say that Wikipedia:Did you know#Date requests wouldn't allow granting an s.o. request based on release date. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes I agree with that point, Theleekycauldron. What is your opinion on the promotions (if that's what they are?) in the final paragraph? I would like to suggest removing those promotions which have not yet ended, and putting each one back later, when they have ended? I do accept that that that type of album promotion will be an important part of the group's history - but not right now. Storye book (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Ohhhh, sorry, I understand the question now. It looks like everything in that paragraph is cited to primary sources, specifically, record labels; obviously those will have an interest in promoting however the heck they've chosen to release the song, but I'm not sure it constitutes WP:DUE weight. if there's anything, well, important and basic that can only be found in those sources, that's fine, but I think a paragraph like this needs secondary sourcing to signal its importance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I guess I should be the sorry one, because I don't think I've made myself clear. The final paragraph almost entirely consists of information about what special sales deals will be on offer (e.g. special colour vinyl disc, bonus flexi-disc and signed poster, alongside the named retail outlets which will sell them on the release date. It doesn't matter what the sources are - it is saying that special stuff will be on sale on a certain date from certain outlets. As for the nature of the sources - I don't personally object to them per se, but they are not used elsewhere in the article for legitimate information, so WP would not lose anything if we were to ask the creator to remove that paragraph on the grounds that it contained only promotional material. (I'm not a deleter by nature, and I believe that the para could go back in the article when all the release-date sales are finished, since the fancy coloured records will ultimately form part of the history of the band). Storye book (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Another problem with the final paragraph is that it violates WP:CRYSTAL: while the album may be scheduled for release on February 11, the future is uncertain and Wikipedia's voice should not be used to say it will be released on that day. As Storye book notes, the release detail is excessive as to who is offering what. I think it needs to be stripped down to scheduled release date and formats (digital, CD, vinyl), with perhaps a mention that the vinyl will be in a number of colors and designs, but nothing specifying who is offering what. I have been wondering about the hooks: ALT1 is clearly ineligible because of the promotional issue surrounding the special occasion request, the original hook doesn't strike me as particularly remarkable—the pandemic has made many things take much longer than usual. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, BlueMoonset. I shall adjust my review comment accordingly. Storye book (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Aria1561: Please see the above review, which I have kept updated. I have had to strike hooks ALT 0 and 1 because ALT0 is nothing new in this pandemic, and because ALT1 is related to the release date, and we are not allowed to publish it as a promotion. That leaves ALT2 which is OK. The only remaining issue is that we are not allowed to have the promotional material in the article's last paragraph (please see BlueMoonset's comment above, especially the bits which I have bolded). Please could you re-write that last para as BlueMoonset requests? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Storye book: I have made the requested changes for the last paragraph. Also, as far as date requests for album release days go, 1) I had a previous DYK nomination w/ a special occasion request for an album release day be accepted (in fact an exception was made for it as it was nominated more than six weeks in advance of the SO date (my mistake)), and 2) I'm not seeing anything in Wikipedia:Did you know#Date requests that would forbid a SO request for an album release day. What I'm seeing is that the hook cannot place emphasis on the album's release, which ALT2 is not doing. A hook that does not mention the album's release being shown on the Main Page during the release day is not at all a form of advertisement. If there is no clear regulation regarding this kind of SO request then I fail to see why this request would be not accepted. If there is one, I would appreciate it being shared so I can know for future DYK nominations. Aria1561 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Aria1561 for correcting the issues relating to the final paragraph. It looks fine, I believe, now. As for the matter of the special occasion request - I was following the advice of theleekycauldron, because I am not experienced in that area. Please could we have your opinion on the special occasion request for the album release date BlueMoonset? See theleekycauldron's above comment of 11.42, 24 January. Storye book (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Ukraine cyberattack

Created by Toadspike (talk). Self-nominated at 23:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

  • I expanded the article a lot recently, I am not sure when the most recent fivefold expansion was, but the 14 January creation date may be a bit earlier than necessary. Perhaps someone with better character-counting abilities can figure out what the expansion date should be. Unrelated, but I am new here so QPQ doesn't apply. Toadspike (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2022 (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 question.svg Thank you, Toadspike, for an interesting cyberattack article. Re the comment by the creator, there are no problems with newness or length, according to DYK Check. The image in the article has a deletion tag, so it could not be used here while the tag remains. The sources at the time of writing this review are all authoritative, including the Microsoft source which is created by their staff. Hook ALT0 is repeated in the main text and cited.

  • I have one hesitation about neutrality. The reactions section gives the reactions of Ukraine and NATO, but not of Russia. Russia is usually outspoken about its intentions and/or denials - are you sure that you cannot find some kind of post-cyberattack comment from Russia in response to the accusations that we see in the Reactions section? (This Reuters report says "The Russian foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Russia has previously denied being behind cyber attacks on Ukraine." That should cover it, if you can't find an actual comment from them.) ETA: Ah, here we are. Wall Stree Journal: "Russia has denied any involvement in the cyberattacks." So if we add that in, with the source, we will have as good a neutrality as we are going to get in that situation.

If that issue can be resolved, I believe this nom should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Shirley McGreal

  • ... that British animal welfare activist Shirley McGreal founded the International Primate Protection League, to stop animal trafficking and traumatic animal experimentation? Source: “ Inspired, she formed the International Primate Protection League two years later. Combining passion, outrage and relentlessness, the British-born Ms. McGreal became a formidable voice against man-made misery suffered by primates from Asia, Africa and South America. She helped force India to stop exporting rhesus monkeys to the United States for military radiation experiments. She pushed for the U.S. government to close a lab at the University of California, Davis, that used smuggled baby gibbons in cancer virus experiments. She exposed trafficking rings, like one in which a Florida primate dealer smuggled six baby orangutans from Indonesian Borneo in crates marked “birds,” with Moscow expected to be their final destination.” The New York Times

Created by Thriley (talk), Lamona (talk), and Psychologist Guy (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 22:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

  • I'll review this. DrThneed (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - n
  • Interesting: Green tickY

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough. Some things to fix, although I don't think these should be too problematic.

Some copyvio clean up needed, as Earwig shows 15% similarity to Guardian obit and 13% to NY times. Much of that is just organisation names but there are some phrases that need changing e.g. "Shirley studied French and Latin at Royal Holloway, University of London" is direct from the Guardian obituary (also, it should be McGreal not Shirley in the WP article).

The hook says not just that she founded the IPPL (which is sourced to three places in the lead) but that she founded it for a purpose ("to stop animal trafficking and traumatic animal experimentation"), which I don't find in the article or the sources. The NY Times quote you've supplied talks about what the IPPL did but not necessarily that that was its intended purpose, and the "about us" IPPL page does not mention animal experimentation, afaics.

Also, v minor, the article refers to she/her all through the Animal welfare section, until the last paragraph, you could maybe use her name somewhere near the beginning of that section too?

Finally, we are collecting hooks about women for International Women's Day on March 8th, would you consider this DYK being held until then? DrThneed (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the copyvio detector is just picking up proper nouns. There doesn’t appear to be any issues there besides the minor bit about her studies. I’ll think about edits to the hook or perhaps another one entirely. Let’s see what one of the other editors who did a great deal of work on the article has to say. Thriley (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut

Created by Polycarpa aurata (talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Non-reviewer comment: Hi, Polycarpa. WP:IMDB is a user-generated source, thus making it unreliable. ALT0 will need a new source or have to be removed. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Re-ping: Polycarpa aurata. Pamzeis (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'll take this as an actual review. This is a newly created article that is long enough and has citations. As noted by Pamzeis, IMDb is not a reliable source, so this cannot pass with it used inline. ALT1 is verified by that source. Correct the IMDB reference or this nomination will fail. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I have changed it to use the same source used in 12th AVN Awards. Do that fix the issue? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 15[edit]

Take-note Debate

Chamber of the House of Commons of Canada
Chamber of the House of Commons of Canada
  • ... that the Canadian House of Commons holds Take-note Debates, where the members of Parliament debate a matter of public interest but never put the matter to a vote? Source: "Take-note debate FAQs", CBC News online, April 10, 2006
    • ALT1: ... that a Take-note Debate in the Canadian House of Commons takes its name from the first line of the motion: "That this House takes note of..." followed by an issue to be discussed? Source: "Take-note debate FAQs", CBC News online, April 10, 2006
    • ALT2: ... that the Canadian House of Commons held a Take-note Debate on the discovery of the graves of over 200 Indigenous children near Kamloops Indian Residential School in May, 2021? Source: CPAC: MPs hold take-note debate on discovery of remains of 215 children in Kamloops – June 1, 2021.
    • ALT3: ... that a Take-note Debate in the Canadian House of Commons is free of party discipline, so members can speak freely on a matter of public interest, before the Cabinet introduces a bill on the subject? Source: "Take-note debate FAQs", CBC News online, April 10, 2006
    • Comment: Sorry that this submission is three days late. I had a lot going on "in real life" and let the deadline slip by. I hope it is still sufficiently interesting to be included in DYK. Edited to Add: this is my 3rd DYK, so I didn't review any other article.

Created by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk). Self-nominated at 05:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

Otto Jäger

5x expanded by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 02:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

  • :comments - after being hit by a propellor his wounds seem less than you might predict. I have suggested an alt as he also went to some lengths to return to fighting the enemy Victuallers (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I am puzzled by the comment above. How does the supposition that Jäger's wound is not so serious a reason to downgrade ALT0 and ALT1?
    • As for ALT2, it is true---of a great majority of all aces on both sides. It's rare to find an ace who served in the air from the start of his career. In other words, ALT2 is a, So what?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Downgrade??? Alt is short for ALTernative! (not for preferred). It made me smile. You could be right that people say "So What!, why everyone knows that most WW1 Aces were originally declared unfit for combat, but surely there must be one who got hurt by a propellor. Oh Wow! look here you lot ..." Victuallers (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
For clarity's sake...I know of hundreds of aces invalided into aerial service, but this is the only case I know of where someone was injured by a propeller.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
... and its an ALT. Good to talk. Victuallers (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jolly Monument

The monument in 2008
The monument in 2008

Created by MB (talk) and ArizonaAltier (talk). Nominated by MB (talk) at 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Review started. I'll be back soon with relevant feedback. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg I do not think this page really needs to exist as a stand-alone article at all. I recommend that its content should be merged into that at Hi Jolly, where the few extra lines and citations about this monument would seem most appropriate. For that reason I am reluctant to promote this to DYK, although in all other respects it would theoretically have met the DYK criteria. Pinging Theroadislong who moved it into mainspace. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Hmm, I'd say to not shut this down just yet—if there's an ongoing merge proposal, we should wait and see if there is consensus to merge. If the article had been taken to AfD, we'd wait to see the result of that discussion, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
That'sa fair comment. I've posted at Talk:Hi Jolly to try to speed up gaining a consensus either way. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 16[edit]

Da'ud ibn al-Adid

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 19:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

Lesley Johnson

Created by Oronsay (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 10:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

  • I will review this as per QPQ requirements. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Alcohol in association football

Carlsberg-sponsored Liverpool F.C. jersey
Carlsberg-sponsored Liverpool F.C. jersey

Created by Unknown Temptation (talk). Self-nominated at 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

Qadi al-Fadil

  • ... that although he became a senior official under the Fatimids, Qadi al-Fadil supported Saladin's abolition of that dynasty? Source: Brockelmann & Cahen 1978, p. 376 " after the death of the last Fatimid, when Saladin himself became ruler of Egypt, al-Qadi al-Fadil was his right hand man in the execution of the necessary reforms" and in general his defection to the Ayyubid cause, covered in Lev 1999, pp. 17-21

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 19:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

  • I am familiar with your [User:Cplakidas/Articles prolific work on historical articles]] so this shouldn't take too long. :)

Article review:

  • New – created 17:25, 16 January 2022 by Cplakidas. (Same day as nom). YES
  • Long enough – Prose size (text only): 10439 characters (1702 words) "readable prose size". YES
  • Within policy
    • is neutral - article appears to not written in an overly positive, simply stating his achievements and praise with a source for each claim. Terms like "reportedly" give context when we don't 100% know what happened. YES
    • cites sources with inline citations - 5 sources are listed. I can't access every one, but user's track record + the one I checked gives me benefit of the doubt. YES
    • is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism - Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports 'Violation Unlikely 1.0% similarity' YES
  • Hook
    • Format – Alt 1 (my preferred) is 149 characters with spacing. YES
    • Content interesting to a broad audience - I learnt a lot reading this article! Personally prefer Alt 1. YES
    • Hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article - As user states, Hook is essentially a summary of the article and is backed up by the article's sources. YES
    • Hook is neutral. Like the rest of the article, hook's words are measured and based on reliable sourcing. YES.
  • Other

I am happy to approve this! --Coin945 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 17[edit]

Sea rewilding

Kelp forest in New Zealand
Kelp forest in New Zealand

Created by Melissa Highton (talk). Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk) at 10:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article needs a good tidy up: MOS:HEADINGS (drop caps), MOS:CITEPUNCT, MOS:SEEALSO. Once the latter has replaced the section "Related links", the article won't meet minimum size requirements any longer. Let me know when these basic things are under control. Also, I question the definite article in the hook. Yes, it's used like that in the source given but it's hyping things up to the point that it does not meet WP:NPOV. It might be "a" new way to capture carbon. Schwede66 21:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I am a bit confused about the tidying up but I see others have made some improvements - is there anything I still need to tidy? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I tidied the last remaining issue. Others also expanded the article. It’s your lucky day; it’s now long enough. I’ll look at it tomorrow in detail. Schwede66 08:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg As I said, the article is now long enough. It's new enough. I've tidied it up further for use of external links (see edit summary for details). It's neutral but has a narrow focus on Europe (especially England); given that it's an international issue, it could do with a broader perspective. That said, we aren't aiming for perfection and as long as no maintenance tags turn up, I shall let this slide. It's suitably referenced. Earwig is happy. With the edits that have been undertaken, the ALT1 hook fact is no longer spelled out in the article. I've struck ALT0 for clarity. With regards to a QPQ, that is the nominator's responsibility and given that you've got a good number of credits under your belt, one is required for this nomination from you. The image's license is fine, but I'm not sure that it's a great image. There are better images in c:Category:Kelp forests in my view. So there's a bit more to do. Schwede66 08:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Have stated hook explicitly, changed pic and added a couple of non-European examples. So am I misunderstanding QPQ? I nominated Great North Bog with QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Teodor Boldur-Lățescu but it appears both on https://betacommand-dev.toolforge.org/reports/logs/dyk/Chidgk1.html and on https://betacommand-dev.toolforge.org/reports/logs/dyk/Melissa_Highton.html So could whichever one of those is the "duplicate payment" be used here? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg QPQ is outstanding. When you nominate somebody else's article, both you and the article creator get a credit. As the nominator, it's your responsibility to provide a QPQ. It's irrelevant whether the article creator does have less than 5 credits when they did not nominate the article themselves. So once you provide a QPQ, I'll check the hook and image. Strictly speaking, you are in debit with your QPQs as you've claimed Template:Did you know nominations/Safad El Battikh, Kafra, Lebanon and Ayta al-Jabal three times when it resulted in just one credit for the nominator (due to the overlap in content between the articles). As an aside, that edit did not create a ping as explained at WP:MENTION. Schwede66 18:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66 Have just completed QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Godzilla Megamullion Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Tatiana Saunders

Tatiana Saunders
Tatiana Saunders

Created by Victuallers (talk) and Ytoyoda (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 10:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

623rd Field Artillery Regiment

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

Cielo Veizaga

  • ... that the Bolivian footballer Cielo Veizaga became the youngest government official in the country's history when she was appointed vice minister of sports at just 19-years-old? Source: "Cielo Veizaga, a 19-year-old footballer, was appointed [...] as Bolivia's vice minister of sports [...]. There is no record of such a young person having previously held a position". La República

Created by Krisgabwoosh (talk). Self-nominated at 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Krisgabwoosh Article is new and long enough and about an interesting life and career, copyvio shows me a 0'00%. QPQ is missing though. And some phrases are unsourced; I sourced some of the text, but I guess you know better in what article to find the missing citations. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd like to review this one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! I'll get to submitting a QPQ shortly. In the meantime, could you direct me to the phrases you found to be unsourced? I'll see what I can do about finding adequate citations after that. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I'll add some invisible comments into the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Ah, ok. I've checked the comments and it appears that everything mentioned is properly sourced. Typically, if multiple sentences in a row use the same source, I find it adequate to place the citation at the end of the last sentence that uses it, rather that after each individual sentence. (E.g. "His name is John. He was born in Kansas. He worked as a consultant.[5]" rather than ""His name is John.[6] He was born in Kansas.[6] He worked as a consultant.[6]") Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
New? Its a great article but is it less than a week old? Victuallers (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Already wanted to reply it was created yesterday but..., it was created last November 2021. Thanks for being so attentive. I guess this then makes it a no show.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. If there remains interest in this topic, the article Iris Flores is sufficiently new and is essentially the same fact (president of the El Alto Municipal council at 20-years-old). Though I don't know if it would be considered long enough. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I read the article, it is long enough, but it is a municipal council not a vice ministry. I didn't find a hook interesting enough of a nomination, but you know her biography and also the region better and might find one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://salute.co.in/dalai-lamas-escape/
  2. ^ https://www.zee5.com/articles/assam-rifles-veteran-who-escorted-dalai-lama-on-his-arrival-in-india-from-tibet-passes-away
  3. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/dalai-lama-meets-assam-rifles-jawan-who-escorted-him-after-his-escape-from-tibet/articleshow/57975868.cms?from=mdr
  4. ^ https://salute.co.in/dalai-lamas-escape/
  5. ^ Example
  6. ^ a b c Example

Articles created/expanded on January 18[edit]

Norberto Gonzales

Created by Howard the Duck (talk). Self-nominated at 13:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

Donald Gurnett

  • ... that plasma physicist Donald Gurnett was part of 41 NASA space missions, including Voyager 1 for which he designed the instrument that confirmed that the craft had crossed the heliopause in 2012? Source: “In all, Gurnett was part of 41 space missions, and nearly two-thirds of the 67 spacecraft projects the UI has been involved in...One mission always stood out to Gurnett: Voyager 1. The spacecraft, launched in 1977, was the second to visit Jupiter and Saturn. In 2012, Gurnett’s radio- and plasma-wave instrument onboard the craft confirmed that Voyager 1 had crossed the heliopause—the plasma boundary of the solar system—farther than any man-made object had ever traveled.”
    University of Iowa obituary

Created by Thriley (talk). Self-nominated at 22:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

Ontario Highway 78

Created by Floydian (talk). Self-nominated at 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

Matilda Allison

Matilda Allison in 1922
Matilda Allison in 1922

Created by Penny Richards (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 10:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

1990 ARCO explosion

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 02:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Ooh this looks interesting. I'll review this when I get the chance.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:16, 26 January 2022 (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: Red XN - Would it be possible to reword the hook to remove at least one of the years? Because at the moment, it seems obvious that something that happened in 1990 happened within one year of something that happened in 1989. I was only interested earlier because I'm from Texas haha.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg See above.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Lloyd Simmons

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg: Muboshgu A QPQ has been conducted. Article satisfies the DYK criteria and the hooks are interesting and have been verified and are mentioned in the article. One minor question: I'm not sure that ALT3 is entirely accurate, the source only says winningest in the in the "National Junior College Athletic Association"-- is that the same as winningest overall? Once that is resolved one way or another this should be good to go. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Eddie891, in essence, these terms are referring to the same thing. The NJCAA is the governing body for junior college athletics. I'm fine with rewriting that hook. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Oh, OK, thanks for clarifying. I'll approve all alts. Hadn't realized what the NJCAA is. Symbol confirmed.svg Eddie891 Talk Work 23:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Avigdor Glogauer

Created by Ploni (talk). Self-nominated at 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Homage to Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Les Dés Sont Jetés

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on January 19[edit]

Melibe colemani

Coleman's Melibe in Komodo, Indonesia
Coleman's Melibe in Komodo, Indonesia

Moved to mainspace by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 23:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Starting review--Kevmin § 15:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Article new enough and long enough, with full referencing. As an article consistency consideration, the prose swaps between the binomial and Coleman's Melibe depending on the paragraph. a quick clean up to match the article title for consistency is appreciated.--Kevmin § 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Tess Posner

Created by Catyeo18 (talk) and HouseOfChange (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 18:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

Phil Williams (Alabama senator)

  • ... that Phil Williams served in the Alabama state legislature at the same time as Phil Williams? Source: AL.com - You don't have to break the law when you make the law: "state Sen. Phil Williams (not to be confused with state Rep. Phil Williams who fought it)"
    • Comment: This is my second DYK nomination. I chose Phil Williams the state senator (not Phil Williams the state representative) to be bolded because he has had a more public profile and more expansive coverage. Thank you!

5x expanded by Kafoxe (talk). Self-nominated at 01:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Red XN - The hook is not found in the article at all, and neither is the source used.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - The hook needs to differentiate between the two Williams a bit better.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The hook issues are going to hold this one up. SounderBruce 03:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

La Valse (Balanchine)

Created by Corachow (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

Wieting Opera House, John Wieting, Mary Elizabeth Wieting Johnson

Created by Eddie891 (talk) and Silver seren (talk). nominated by Eddie891 at 02:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

  • In progress. Three large new well researched articles linked as per the main hook. Neutral coverage and QPQs offered by the authors. Victuallers (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. Symbol confirmed.svg to Mary Elizabeth Wieting Johnson. Lots of refs and its new enough and its neutral. She was the sole owner of the last version. I know its tricky but "Mary inherited his estate and began managing the opera house." implies that she was not the proprieter of the first version. However I have decided that the hook doesnt refer to their joint ownership but that they were both, at some time, proprietors, thank you Victuallers (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. John Wieting WIP Victuallers (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  3. Wieting Opera House WIP Victuallers (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Technical support scam

Improved to Good Article status by Pahunkat (talk). Self-nominated at 20:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg not a full review, but the article can't be approved for DYK while the POV template persists. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Theleekycauldron, dispute appears to have come to an end now, but would not mind waiting a few more days to make sure. Pahunkat (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    sounds good—in any case, the nomination hasn't received a full review yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 20[edit]

Bath & Racquets Club

The entrance to the Bath & Racquets Club
The entrance to the Bath & Racquets Club

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 18:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

History of the Jews in Hong Kong

5x expanded by Golden (talk). Self-nominated at 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

I Dig Everything

  • ... that David Bowie's "I Dig Everything" was one of his first songs to be covered by another artist? Source: Pegg, Nicholas (2016). The Complete David Bowie (Revised and Updated ed.). London: Titan Books. pp. 119–120. ISBN 978-1-78565-365-0.

5x expanded by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

Alexander Buchan (artist)

5x expanded by Kusma (talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

Amanda Villepastour

Created by Bahnfrend (talk). Self-nominated at 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC). * Review in progress Going to remove the band history as they have their own article. Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Courant Snyder parameters

  • ... that although the Courant Snyder parameters in accelerator physics are often referred to as Twiss parameters, Richard Q. Twiss had no involvement in creating them? Source: "Some years ago Frank Cole contacted Richard Twiss, who didn’t understand why the parameters were named for him." [[19]]
    • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination, sorry if I've made any procedural errors.

Moved to mainspace by PianoDan (talk). Self-nominated at 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment from nominator: The original article has been moved to Courant–Snyder parameters Is there anything that needs to be done to update this nomination? Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Flossie (1995)

Created by Skarmory (talk). Self-nominated at 17:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

JumpStart Toddlers

QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Qadi al-Fadil

Article created by Coin945 on January 20, 2022 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article creation date was recent enough, size is adequate, Copyvio score is very good and the hook is interesting while cited in-line properly, but you need to write "the" before Chicago Sun-Times and the source should have a title on this page; do this by using [ ] with the URL first. Also, the article is using an unreliable source in PR Newswire that has gotta go for it to meet the DYK eligibility and the QPQ needs an icon representing the verdict before it counts properly. K. Peake 22:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note to Coin945 and K. Peake: the QPQ is not yet fully done—reviews are not considered complete until one of the review icons from the table above the edit window has been included as part of the review. I hope it will be completed soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with you BlueMoonset and the detail of my possible vote has now been updated to reflect this. K. Peake 22:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Special Security Response Team

I'm open to other ideas. Created by Ominae (talk). Self-nominated at 13:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 21[edit]

York City F.C. (1908)

Converted from a redirect by Mattythewhite (talk). Self-nominated at 02:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC).

Richard J. Ferris

5x expanded by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 03:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 22[edit]

Kausheya (silk)

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 03:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

Midgard (game)

5x expanded by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC).

Theresa Pulszky

Created by Silver seren (talk) and FloridaArmy (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 03:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC).

Joanne Passet

Prof Joanne Passet in 2011
Prof Joanne Passet in 2011
  • ... that US historian Joanne Passet has written two biographies, one about the author of "Sex Variant Women in Literature" and another about the "Indomitable" publisher Barbara Grier? Source: Both of the Quotes are from her book titles and they are reffed in the article

Created by Naushervan (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 23:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

  • The article was nominated on the same day it was made, so is new enough. At ~2800 characters, it is long enough and uses in-line citations. The hook is short enough, interesting, and is cited in-line for both parts of the statement and the QPQ is done. Everything looks good to go! SilverserenC 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the description of American writer Jeanette Howard Foster as a "Sex Variant Woman" is appropriate - the use of that phrase in the biography title is a reference to a book she wrote. It seems a little reductionist to call her that.Naushervan (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC) -
Okay, I've removed my check mark above. And I've added in an Alt hook space up above if you want to make an alternative hook, Naushervan. SilverserenC 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Naushervan Sure its reductionist! and it was Joanne Passet's reduction" based on the fact that the biography was for a women who had spent most of her life studying "Sex Variant Women in Literature" and therefore was entirely appropriate, but I can see that you might want to censor her reduction.. so go on...I have stepped back to the book title. Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I hardly think that expressing a different opinion on phrasing is "censoring" (it is reductionist, though). - Naushervan (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Naushervan OK thanks please replace "censor" with "change" or "improve" or "ignore", that word is not essential. More importantly, can we start again? Do you have any thoughts about the nomination? Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Victuallers The word "censor" has a very specific meaning, and your usage of it in this context suggests to me that any further participation in this conversation by mself would not be considered fairly. I have nothing to add here - please consider yourself "not censored". - Naushervan (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Silver seren I appreciate the work that you and Naushervan have put into this nom. I have obviously offended Naushervan and they are unwilling to accept my recant or contribute further. I suggest that I withdraw this nomination and we apply our effort to other articles. OK? Victuallers (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 23[edit]

Baha al-Din Qaraqush

Cairo Citadel in the 19th century
Cairo Citadel in the 19th century
  • ... that Baha al-Din Qaraqush built the Cairo Citadel (pictured) on behalf of Saladin? Source: Sobernheim, p. 613: "Saladin gave him the task of building the citadel of Cairo"
    • ALT1: ... that Qaraqush, a regent of Ayyubid Egypt, was highly esteemed by medieval historians, but in the centuries since his name has become a 'byword of stupidity'? Source: Sobernheim p. 613: "was appointed to represent the Sultan when the latter was out of Egypt...he designated his son al-Malik al-Mansur his successor and Karakush his regent." and the direct quote by Sobernheim later on.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Navy cutlasses
    • Comment: image only for ALT0

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 17:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

B. J. Habibie Bridge

  • ... that the B. J. Habibie Bridge in Dili, East Timor, is named after a former deputy of the Indonesian President who instigated the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor? Source: "Habibie’s bridge is brochure-perfect brilliant, still with its sails up from the [inauguration] ceremony, and no one seems to find it odd that a shiny new symbol of growing Timor-Leste is named for the anti-independence confidante of the dictator responsible for the invasion." (Raynor, Sophie (6 September 2019). "A Postcard from Dili". Global Hobo.) [As the relevant Wikipedia articles confirm, B. J. Habibie was Vice President (in 1998) to Suharto, who was President when Indonesia invaded (1975) and occupied (1975-1999) East Timor]

Created by Bahnfrend (talk). Self-nominated at 09:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

Anti-monuments in Mexico, Antimonumenta (Guadalajara), Antimonumenta (Morelia), Antimonumenta (Mexico City)

Antimonumenta
Antimonumenta