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
October 1
November 3 1
November 19 1
November 21 1
November 30 1
December 4 1
December 5 1
December 6 1
December 7 1
December 8 1
December 9 2
December 12 1
December 13 1
December 15 2
December 19 4 1
December 20 3
December 21
December 22 3
December 25 1
December 26 1
December 27 1
December 28 1
December 29 1
December 30 2 1
December 31 3 1
January 1 2 2
January 2 6 3
January 3 5 3
January 4 4 3
January 5 8 6
January 6 10 8
January 7 17 14
January 8 6 5
January 9 12 9
January 10 17 8
January 11 13 2
January 12 9 5
January 13 15 8
January 14 17 13
January 15 16 11
January 16 10 4
January 17 12 6
January 18 2
Total 216 113
Last updated 06:48, 18 January 2022 UTC
Current time is 06:48, 18 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 3[edit]

Emily Goss

  • ... that Emily Goss's role as Jennifer in the film The House on Pine Street earned her four Best Actress award nominations, of which she won three, in the American festival circuit? source, source, source.
    • ALT1: ... that the character Louise, played by Emily Goss in the film Snapshots, is based on a real Louise, whom the writer-producer's mother was romantically involved with in the 1930s? Source: "Our writer-producer Jan Miller Curran was with her mother when she was 94 and... said, 'Louise is here... the love of my life.' So then Jan learned... of their secret relationship... in the 1930s." source

Created/expanded by Mungo Kitsch (talk). Self-nominated at 05:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Question?
  • Interesting: Red XN - see below
  • Other problems: Red XN - see below
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Hello, Mungo and welcome to DYK! Review as follows: The article is new enough, long enough and neutral. However, it includes a WP:IMDB source and I am unsure about the reliability of several other sources, including Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep. To add to that, the YouTube link does not appear to be uploaded by an official channel, making it unreliable. Additionally, per MOS:FILMCAST uncredited roles need a source. the copyvio checker showed up a 50%+ similarity with a source, which may suggest over quotation. On top of that, the subject has unclear notability. I'm unsure which roles are significant and The House on Pine Street appears to have a questionable notability. None of her awards seem significant and I'm not seeing any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ALT0 isn't very interesting given the festival is not significant enough to have an article. I think ALT1 is interesting but it seems to focus more on the character, not the actress which isn't exactly ideal... QPQ not needed. We'll need some work but we'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mungo Kitsch: Hello, will you still be able to address the concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis, thank you for your very constructive and enthusiastic feedback, and @Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your reminder; apologies for my delayed response. One thing I did soon after Pamzeis's feedback was abridge the quote in my second DYK, in hopes of curbing my overquoting. And I will intend on getting back to the Emily Goss article fairly soon, and further expanding and fortifying it in the pursuit of it passing the DYK nomination. If you look at my editing history, I've had ten straight days where I did not edit, one big reason being that I have family-related matters that needed attending to, such as Thanksgiving and another more somber matter. Anyways, let me get back to the Emily Goss article again, probably sometime this week. I will try to do some further rephrasing of the DYKs already here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis: Yes, I've got an update or two. I made this and other edits, which had the primary purpose of expanding on where The House on Pine Street premiered, and later to add some theatre to her repertoire. I am also going to see what type of information can be sourced from this podcast, which is another interview with Goss.
I am genuinely unsure, though, what to do to rephrase or spruce up this DYK. The DYK has my consent to be closed. I thought of this entry as a fun way to get exposure for the article I made, and my inexperience with DYK is apparent, as this is my first time being here after having made an article. I fully intend on expanding and refining the Emily Goss article, but to do so on my own time, without pertinent expectation from other parties and institutions. Feel free to add it to your watchlist, or drop in/contribute whenever. Thank you for your guidance. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll do my best to break it down
  • Sources: First and foremost, WP:IMDB is an unreliable source and will have to be removed/replaced. This may apply to other sources (highlighted above). See WP:RS for what contributes to a source being reliable. Usually, the bare minimum is paid staff and an editorial. If you are unsure, you can ask at WP:RSN. Uncredited roles need a source because they can't be source back to the original material... because they didn't credit her.
  • The copyvio detector shows a 50%+ similarity with the Addicted to Horror Movies article. While the quote is properly attributed, it is very long. See WP:OVERQUOTE for more details but this could be interpreted as a copyright violation given it is more than 50% of the source's text.
  • Regarding notability, Goss would have to meet either WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR to warrant an article.
    • GNG means that there need to be multiple (i.e. more than night) reliable (see comments above on an source being reliable), independent (ones with a lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved) sources that cover her significantly (not just one or two sentences about her but a, say, whole section devoted to her)
    • ANYBIO means that a person needs to meet one of the three criteria. The only one I can see Goss potentially meeting is the first one. However, her awards do not seem very significant (the criteria for me is an award being rated high or top importance on WikiProject Awards)
    • NACTOR also means that a person needs to meet one of the three criteria. Again, the only one I could see Goss meeting is the first one (multiple significant roles). The only major role she seems to have had is in The House on the Pine Street, which is only one. The production also has questionable notability per GNG.
  • OK, onto the hooks:
    • ALT0. It's not very interesting. An award that's not noticeable to have an article isn't going to interest many people. If the award was an Oscar, then you might have something, but it's not.
    • ALT1 is interesting, but it's more about the character than the actress. Without the actress, the hook would have the same meaning. Goss's name seems to be shoved in there for the sake of her name being in the hook. This would make a reader more likely to want to find an article on the character instead of the actress.
  • Yeah, I think that's pretty much it... Pamzeis (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    Also, DYK is definitely a fun way to get exposure for an article but it can get tricky when a reviewer (or someone else) and nominator disagree. Don't worry about being inexperienced because that's better than not trying at all and never becoming experienced. We'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis:: Again, thanks for the constructive feedback. I'll do what I can to make this worth your time. Based on your feedback, I think I'll scratch the first DYK and replace it with another factoid that I have in mind. Since the awards she won are of varying notability, that is what factors into your judgment that the first point is not viable, at present, as a DYK. Therefore, I will put increased effort into improving both the article and this DYK presentation. Thanks again. Feel free to check in in a few days to see what I come up with. I intend on making this a priority. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for checking in again, and I'm glad you asked. I did sift through @Pamzeis:'s critique, and found some time to flesh things out today. For one, the WP:COPYVIO concerns posed here are now lesser. (NOTE: Some CPOYVIOs that I did not see until later today, and I have checked multiple times, are that of wiki.ng and olasmediatv.com. Those are unreliable sources, and the text clearly copied the Wikipedia article, and not the other way around. Not sure what I can do about that, but that's clearly their plagiarism and not mine.) I have removed the quote that I had made about Goss's attitude toward Jennifer, and will likely reintroduce the information in an alternate fashion later. I also expanded coverage of her, including her role in Painting Anna. I decided to scratch the first two DYKs altogether to replace them with potentially interesting alternates; I believe the last one I added about the pregnancy prosthetic, ALT5, is my personal favorite DYK at this time. As for notability concerns, the best I can do is continue to add information about her from diverse and reliable sources. And speaking of WP:RS, even before your comment today, the IMDB and Youtube citations were removed by user @Kbabej:. I replaced some of the information that was removed with a valid non-IMDB source.
I will continue to expand and improve this article. I'm glad I could find the time today to do that. Naruto and Pamzeis, if you like what you see here, let me know. If it still misses the mark by DYK standards, let me know too. I'm sorry I have lumbered around time-wise, but I hope that its present state is an improvement, and that this is worth your time. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
From a glance at the sources, many of them seem to be of questionable reliability at best. I will review the alts and copyvio next year. Pamzeis (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I think the new alts are passable. I find ALT3 the most interesting. COPYVIO seems fine now. Pamzeis (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mungo Kitsch: Any updates? Pamzeis (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis: Sure, of course. I appreciate you liking the alt DYKs that I posted, particularly ALT3. I ultimately knew that the first two, by themselves, couldn't cut it. With you deciding that the ALTs are passable, what do you advise at this time moving forward? Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Many of the sources—specifically Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep—are of questionable reliability at the moment. Can you please justify why they should be considered acceptable per WP:RS? Pamzeis (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis:: Sure, I'll take a gander at that, because I have had a challenge with thinking about it during these two months. I believe your concerns are valid, and it's not a matter of me "rejecting" that advice as much as it is me trying to think about the way that removing the sources would impact the article without gutting it. I have felt that inclusion of these sources was valid because of them exhibiting testimonies of Emily Goss in ways that are not mere user-generated content such as IMDB and Youtube being formerly on there.
Dan's Papers is a regional news and culture website for "Long Island's East End" that, despite its name, has more contributors and writers than just Dan Rattiner. It comes off to me as not too dissimilar to a local newspaper with a cultural bent, many of which are acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. FilmInk is a webzine that details news and films and goings-on in the film industry, particularly that of Australia. I am confident that it is an RS, because out of the presently 1,361 hits from searching FilmInk, almost all of them are because of FilmInk citations in an article; while that, by itself, does not an RS make, I believe that it as a webzine that is not self-published and does not have a relevant political bias one way or the other makes it worthy of being cited on Wikipedia, kind of like what metalstorm.net is to the worldwide metal music scene, Pitchfork is to the music world generally, and Variety is to the movie world generally. I believe the same argument can apply to Addicted to Horror Movies, as a zine that gave coverage toward, and reviews of, horror movies, until it became inactive in 2017. These may be more marginal than mainstream sites such as The Guardian, which is also cited on the article; but as cultural commentary that are not personal blogs, they, in my opinion, should not be shut out. I don't see how a website such as FernTV.ca, in this context, is problematic. I feel the concern here is that "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact," but these websites are journalistic and not user-generated and not user-edited.
A source like Queer Media Matters can be seen as having a political bias, therefore jading the objectivity of what they post; something that has not stopped PinkNews from being on the Perennial sources list. But the specific Queer Media Matters website features an interview with Goss, which therefore features valid information about her film career. Although, come to think of it, Queer Media Matters is almost exclusively run by Dana Piccoli (but some articles have other authors), but does not come off to me as a mere "personal blog" or "fansite". I have encountered several of those which I chose not to cite on the article, one of which is a blog of only eight posts, and none since 2020.
Come to think of it, some of them likely do have independent sourcing concerns; and regarding the North Coast Rep, Three Women in a Box, and Antaeus citations, I have either removed or replaced them with third-party coverage.
With that said, if a peer review decides that these sources do not cut it, then I will do what I can to accommodate. I really want them to be on the page, but you question their validity. Therefore, I have brought it up for discussion here to seek additional opinions; feel free to input there if you want. I believe that we have a cross section of WP:INTERVIEW, WP:INDEPENDENT, and maybe even of WP:ADVERT (but hopefully not) at hand, and I hope that additional opinions can assist in the matter, considering how much such sources have been discussed on Wikipedia. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
PS: I just added a source from iNews for her uncredited role in Suburbicon. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Mungo Kitsch: and @Pamzeis:. I have rephrased all the copyvio that I could find in the article. It should be OK in that respect, now. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Mungo, it should help you in the future to know that just copying and pasting material into an article without quotation marks or acknowledgement is not quotation. It is copyright violation (copyvio), which must be either rephrased or deleted. On the other hand, a quotation is an acknowledged copy of someone else's work, that is, it must either have quotation marks or be in a blockquote, and it must be cited. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Good to know, Storye book. I feel like I am usually pretty good about avoiding CPOYVIOs, but can always use pointers to be even better. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 19[edit]

Neural synchrony

  • ... that people's brains fall in neural synchrony with other brains during shared experiences? Source: Kinreich, Sivan; Djalovski, Amir; Kraus, Lior; Louzoun, Yoram; Feldman, Ruth (2017-12-06). "Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 17060
  • ALT1: ... that people's brain activity falls in neural synchrony with other brains when they play music together? Source: Sänger, Johanna; Müller, Viktor; Lindenberger, Ulman (2012). "Intra- and interbrain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6: 312. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312

Created by BearGoldstein (talk). Self-nominated at 08:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @BearGoldstein: New and long enough, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ not needed. Many paragraphs do not have a citation at their end, so it's unclear what source these are cited by. The hook fact doesn't seem to apply generally, as the cited source says in its abstract, "neural synchrony was found for couples, but not for strangers". Thanks for doing such a thorough job on this article; I think it is actually close to Good Article status. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello Antony-22! Thank you very much for reviewing my DYK nomination and for your kind words about the article. I see what you're saying about the citations. My thought process was that the article's paragraphs, barring the intro, should have multiple citations that link to sources for the information used. I didn't create each individual paragraph around one single source, which is why I didn't always cite one source at the end of some of my paragraphs. Instead, many of my paragraphs are structured around a couple different sources, and I did my best to cite these sources appropriately throughout. I hope this is sufficient, but I am open to other perspectives, especially if they are more conducive to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though.
You also make a very good point about the citation for the DYK nomination. I was trying to make a hook that applied to the gist of my article as a whole, rather than one specific fact. Much of the research that supports the claim in the hook uses more specific examples (e.g., communication, coordination, or narrative processing paradigms) to conclude a connection between neural synchrony and shared experiences. Although it does not mention it explicitly in the abstract, the citation I decide to use explores shared subjective experiences, discussing "how natural social moments express in the brain as a shared experience of two interacting humans." Nevertheless, thanks to your comment I'm now realizing that I could have used a more concrete hook and a more precise citation, rather than using a hook that speaks broadly about the essence of my article as a whole. If I could tweak it at this stage, I would, but I am still really hoping for a DYK selection!
Once again, thank you for taking the time to review my article and nomination. I'm glad you think it is thorough and close to Good Article status. I am more than happy to take the necessary steps to upgrade the article, so if you (or anyone else out there) have any suggestions, then I would love to hear from you! BearGoldstein (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
BearGoldstein, you can always suggest another hook (or other hooks)—sometimes nominations go through a number of hooks before an interesting one is found. Please do create "a more concrete hook and a more precise citation"; it's what's needed now! Thank you very much. (Courtesy ping to reviewer Antony-22, in case they have other suggestions, or a further response to the nominator.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made an adjustment to the DYK nomination. Thanks for letting me know this was possible Bluemoonset! BearGoldstein (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
BearGoldstein, I was happy to do so. For future reference, we add the new hook as an ALT hook (in this case ALT1), while retaining the old hook for historical purposes. I've restored the original hook and given your new hook an ALT1 label. Antony-22, does the new hook answer your hook concerns? If any citation issues remain, perhaps you can add citation needed templates in those places, and BearGoldstein can provide the necessary citations? Many thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@BearGoldstein and BlueMoonset: The citations still need to be added at the end of several paragraphs. ALT1 is better but I want to avoid making a broad statement based on one or a few primary research articles. How about something like the following? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that guitarists playing a duet together have been shown to be in neural synchrony?

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 November 30[edit]

Sangatsu no Phantasia

  • ... that some of Sangatsu no Phantasia's songs were based on novels written by its vocalist Mia? Source: [1], [2]
    • ALT1: ... that Mia, the vocalist of the anime music unit Sangatsu no Phantasia, is also a published novelist? Source: Same sources as ALT0, [3]; note that the Gentosha link is currently not in the article, but can be added if needed.

Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg @Narutolovehinata5: Overall, this is a nice article. No plagiarism issues, long enough, new enough, and generally well-sourced. I like your hooks too, at least I myself find that interesting. If it matters, I prefer the more consice wording of the first hook. Admittedly, this is my first DYK review, so apologies if I did anything wrong. Anyway, just address my one concern and I will happily promote this. Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. However, DYK rules generally forbid reviewers from promoting nominations that they have reviewed, so the promotion will have to be done by another editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that; pass probably would have been a better word choice, since that is what I meant. Anyway, just add a ref for that I will gladly pass it. Link20XX (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg All good from me. Link20XX (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg @Narutolovehinata5: ALT0 seems like WP:SYNTH to me, then—and I don't think ALT1 quite cuts it. Is there another ALT we can use? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I can understand the issues with ALT0, but I'm not really sure what's the issue with ALT1: is the hook fact not interesting, or is the citing not strong enough? Because the sources do state that she has written novels. A possible alternate ALT could be how their songs inspired some novels, but I'm not really sure if you'd be okay with that hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
If I may add in my thoughts, I don't see any major problems with either (I admit I'm new to DYK reviewing so I apologize if I did something wrong). But I do have a limited understanding of Japanese, and I can confirm the source does confirm the hook. As someone who has little knowledge of music, I also find this interesting though that may be just me. Link20XX (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron: Is it okay if you respond to the new comments? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Narutolovehinata5: sorry, I've been suuper backlogged with pings—i had to start putting sticky notes on my corkboard of people i need to get back to. So, yeah, I'd say that ALT0 probably doesn't pass policy muster and that ALT1 doesn't strike me as super grabby to a broad audience. Back to the drawing board? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
      • @Theleekycauldron: I see. A singer also being a novelist isn't an interesting hook? I thought such a case was unusual. I'll try to think of alternative hook facts, but in the meantime, here's some possible ALTs:
        • ALT2 ... that some of Japanese music unit Sangatsu no Phantasia's songs have been adapted into novels?
        • ALT2a ... that some of Japanese music unit Sangatsu no Phantasia's songs inspired novels?
        • ALT3 ... that some of Japanese music unit Sangatsu no Phantasia's songs were adapted into novels written by its lead vocalist?
      • Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
        • @Narutolovehinata5: It is unusual, but I don't think one person occupying two arts positions is super hooky if they aren't recognized extensively in at least one of the fields. As for the ALTs, they weren't adapted or inspired, were they? they were just created at the same time, according to the nominator. Wouldn't those be the same problem as ALT0? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm kind of lost how to address these hooks without suggesting a totally new hook fact. There's one where a hook could be about how the vocalist didn't show her face in pictures, but that's contradicted by how recently she's started appearing personally in publicity photos too, and I think it would be synthesis to state that she "previously" hid her face. I wonder if we could get a second opinion from another editor to see what can be done about the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Since this has been stuck for a while I'm requesting a second opinion on the hooks as well as possible input on new hook facts or wordings. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:26, 9 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)

Articles created/expanded on December 5[edit]

The Alignment Problem

  • ... that The Alignment Problem, a book discussing existential risk from AI, was one of "5 books that inspired Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella this year"? Source: Nadella, Satya (November 15, 2020). "5 books that inspired Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella this year". Fast Company. Retrieved December 5, 2021.
    • Comment: I'm a little late to nominating this, sorry. I had a hook in mind on December 9, four days after the creation of the article. Just reading Template talk:Did you know, I didn't realize that new articles were supposed to be nominated within seven days, so I put off nomination for a bit later. An alternative hook: that could be used Did you know... that Brian Christian, the author of The Alignment Problem, was named the Most Human Human in the Loebner Prize (which is the contemporary version of the Turing test)?

Created by Jmill1806 (talk). Nominated by Enervation (talk) at 18:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment I don't want to do a formal review just yet (i'd be happy to waive the timing requirement), but I do have a question; if the article doesn't have 1500 characters of reliably-sourced interpretation and prose, rather than just synopsis, does that fulfill the length requirement? I'd probably prefer that there were 1500 non-synopsis prose characters. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Aighty, from conversation at WT:DYK, it should be fine. Continuing review... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 16:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Enervation: Symbol possible vote.svg Moving on, the article is neutral and the hook is interesting (QPQ not needed, image not provided), but I have some problems with the sourcing for the article and hook here. The article relies on a Forbes.com contributor for their own opinion, which, since Forbes.com contributors are considered generally unreliable by community consensus at WP:RSP], doesn't seem sturdy enough for inclusion. I'll take Fast Company at face value as reliable, but since the article is written by the Microsoft CEO, it's technically a primary source; hooks usually require secondary sourcing. Is there a secondary source for the hook, and content to replace the Forbes.com contributor section? We may need a new hook, which is fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's anything wrong with using a primary source (i.e. the Fast Company link) as a source for hooks provided it's uncontroversial information that isn't likely to be faked. I mean, I'm willing to assume good faith that Nadella wouldn't lie about the books that inspired him, would he? Besides, WP:PRIMARY does state that as long as a layperson can understand the source and there's no interpretation involved, the source should be just fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I suppose you're right—I didn't think the information was fabricated, just possibly irrelevant given its primary nature. The Forbes Contributor link will still need to be worked out, though, Enervation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 6[edit]

Veronica Volkersz

Her maiden name was Veronica May Innes
Her maiden name was Veronica May Innes

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 23:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg@Andrew Davidson: Interesting read. Over 5x expansion from 11/30 through 12/6. Mostly offline sources, accepted on good faith. Issues: 1) The second sentence of 'Early life' needs a citation. 2) Any sentence containing a quote needs a citation directly after the sentence: see 5th paragraph of 'Second World War'. 3) A citation should be added directly after "she took to RAF Moreton Valence". Otherwise good to go. Ping me when these are addressed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel like the hook is long and unwieldy. How about something shorter but attention-getting like this? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that beauty queen Veronica Volkersz (pictured) was the first woman to pilot an operational jet fighter? Source: Jo Wheeler (2018), "1,2,7,8,9,11,13,22,23,26,28", The Hurricane Girls, Penguin, ISBN 9780241354643
  • ALT1: ... that beauty queen Veronica Volkersz (pictured) was the first woman to pilot an operational jet fighter? The article was 5 times expanded, interesting topic, Great photo, no copyright issues in the article. Bruxton (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Her maiden name was Veronica May Innes
Her maiden name was Veronica May Innes

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 ([4][5][6] [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)

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)

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 13[edit]

Price of the Modi Years

  • ... that Price of the Modi Years states that India lost 20% of its workforce under Prime Minister Narendra Modi? Source: Aakar Patel: ‘Modi shrank India’s workforce by a fifth’ Hindu
    • Reviewed: Exempt
    • Comment: Working to expand the article.

Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 07:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Hook is interesting and within prescribed limits. Image of book cover is fair use and will not appear on WP front page in the DYK section. Sources check. Earwig dup detector shows no close paraphrasing to speak of. Good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Since the article/hook has already been approved, I'll leave that up to Venkat TL We might simply want to mention that in the lede, again, if Venkat TL thinks the statement is ledeworthy. Of course I suppose you're free to make such an edit. I've no objections. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • theleekycauldron, thank you for the ALT, I think it is even better than what I had proposed. I prefer your alt over mine. Gwillhickers, it is already added in the section on Content. I have no objections to any of the ALTs. Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 15[edit]

Vivienne Rohner

  • ... that fashion model Vivienne Rohner was named after fashion designer Vivienne Westwood? Source: 20min.ch (if you don't read German it essentially says "Westwood inspired my parents when naming me".
    • ALT1: ... that fashion model Vivienne Rohner would have become a race car driver? Source: Annabelle.ch (again in German, when asked what she would be doing if she didn't become a model she said race car driver)

Created by Trillfendi (talk). Self-nominated at 21:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Article is eligible and sourced, assuming good faith for German sources, with the exception of the final line "She has also appeared on the cover of Vogue Netherlands." That needs a source. The first hook is sourced, interesting, and an appropriate length; ALT1 is not mentioned in the article, and would need to be in order to be usable for DYK. I'll also propose ALT0a:
  • ALT0a: ... that fashion model Vivienne Rohner, named after fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, opened one of Westwood's shows during her first season as a model?
  • Trillfendi, please request another review using {{DYK?again}} once you've fixed the issues I raised, since I've suggested an ALT which also needs review. For now, I'll leave a Symbol question.svg. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ezlev: Honestly, if you were going to make a review that would have to be thrown out it could've just been a comment. Trillfendi (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be thrown out, Trillfendi – I did a full review, so if you fix the two issues I pointed out, I expect that the next reviewer won't find any new issues. I've only asked you to request a new review afterward because I can't approve my own alternate hook. If you'd prefer it, I'll happily approve ALT0 and ALT1 if you ping me once the issues are fixed. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


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

Hook eligibility:

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

QPQ: Red XN - ?
Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you, Trillfendi, for this article; I enjoyed reading it. Two points: (1) ALTs 0 and 0a are fine, but ALT1 doesn't make sense. Rohner would have become a racing driver if what? Maybe it could be rephrased to say that she would have become a racing driver if she had not become a model, or maybe that if she had not been so successful as a model then she would have liked to have been a racing driver, or whatever. (2) I see that you already have at least 5 DYKs, so please could you do a QPQ? @Ezlev: If you would like to use your above review as a QPQ, or have already done so, that is fine (I am only doing this as part of a general catchup of old nominations). All the best. Storye book (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Articles created/expanded on December 19[edit]

Dendrodoa grossularia

  • ... that larvae of the baked bean ascidian often settle onto the tunics of adult individuals? Source: La larve finit par tomber et se fixer sur la tunique d'une groseille adulte puis la larve subit une importante métamorphose*, au cours de laquelle chorde et queue régressent, pour finalement donner un jeune individu adulte en forme d'outre.

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 11:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

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

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - No
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg All the main points check out, but I have some quibbles. First, on the word “often” in the hook: in the source, fréquent is about the larvae being often observed on tunics, but what is said above is simply that they fall onto tunics. Also, looking at the new page, I see there “they settle onto the seabed”, but I couldn’t find that in the only source. Does it come from somewhere else, Cwmhiraeth? Moonraker (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker: Well the larvae are planktonic and the adults sedentary on rocks and hard places, so they have to settle somewhere to undergo metamorphosis, and the seabed is a fairly generalised term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth, how do you feel about striking through “often”? Seems to me there is a difference between the habitat as described in the lead (“shallow water and on the lower shore in exposed rocky sites”) and “seabed”! If there is no source for that, would suggest losing it. Moonraker (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Moonraker: Another part of the DORIS source states (in Google translation) "Aggregated, sea currant likes hard rocky substrates (rocks, boulders, overhangs, drop offs, etc.) shaded, but also sometimes the crampons of kelp, from the surface to the infra-littoral zone, rarely lower. Solitary, it attaches itself to the shells of molluscs, living or dead, and to the stones. Locally, and most frequently, sea currants form large populations." So it is apparent that the larva does not exclusively settle onto the tunic of adult individuals and I think we should retain a qualifier such as "often" or "sometimes". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, that section isn’t about the larvae. It does tell us this species does not live on the seabed. Forgive me, you seem to want to say things that are not in the source. If you think that is wrong, could I suggest finding another one. Moonraker (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Moonraker: I think we differ as to the meaning of the word seabed. If a larva swims or floats in the water column, and the adult lives on the solid surface down below, the larva must have settled on the seabed. You could withdraw your tick if you wish and I could ask for another reviewer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Moonraker and Cwmhiraeth: yeah, might as well withdraw the tick—this can't be promoted until the issue's worked out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think a new reviewer is needed, or at least a second opinion about the sourcing issue. It's been over two weeks since the last posts by reviewer and nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

2019 Lakewood semi-truck crash

Created by Chibears85 (talk), moved to mainspace by Elli (talk), and further expanded by Doug Grinbergs (talk). Nominated by Elli (talk) at 04:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg It took me some searching to find that it was created in AFC January 2021, and finally moved to main on December 19, 2021 - so it is new enough. The hook is interesting and made me want to investigate. The hook is also supported by the NBC reference. The items that appear as copyright violations are direct quotes which are properly attributed - the article is fully referenced. At 6000+ characters the article is long enough. Bruxton (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Also the QPQ is completed. Bruxton (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg a new paragraph was added with[out] sourcing; it'll need to be properly sourced before promotion. (i wouldn't say no to toning it down, either) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify where this stands: the first paragraph under "subsequent events" is not sourced and needs to be; also, will the resentencing mentioned take place at all given the commutation mentioned in the paragraph below it? The article should be brought up to date and sourced appropriately before it can be approved again. You might want to consider a new hook that gives the 110-year sentence and the governor's commutation to 10 years. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
          • @Theleekycauldron and BlueMoonset: I've updated the article and added ALT1 -- not sure about the wording on the hook but it contains the relevant information. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
            • New paragraph is now sourced; I like ALT0 better—this seems like one of those cases where it's acceptable to not tell the whole story. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

St. Martin, Moosach

Alt-St. Martin, Moosach
Alt-St. Martin, Moosach

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was (barely) new enough at the time of the nomination, and is long enough and adequately sourced. A QPQ has been done. However, there are several issues with the hook. Firstly, nothing in the article outright states that one of the churches is one of the oldest churches in Munich: while the article states that the church has a long history (dating back to 815), the words "one of the oldest in Munich" are never directly stated or sourced in the article. Secondly, coming from a very Catholic country myself, it's not that unusual for a parish to have more than one church or chapel, so the hook isn't really that unique in that regard. If the issues regarding the "one of the oldest in Munich" aspect can be addressed, I think a hook about that fact specifically would be a good hook: a hook that only mentions Alte Pfarrkirche St. Martin and says that it is one of the oldest churches in Munich. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    Narutolovehinata5, thank you for the review, and happy New Year! - Yes, there are many parishes with more than one church, but not so many with two of the same name (often the older one is demolished) and both active, and so different. The hook doesn't say it's the only one, just something I find specific. - As for "one of the oldest", there's a ref now, also, the date will make it "one of the oldest" as quite old. The sentence is translated, and I am sure the book sources will support the fact, but sadly I don't see them. If that's not good enough for you, we could say "around 1200" and let readers decide themselves. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    OK let's say so:
    ALT0a: ... that the St. Martin parish of Moosach has two churches dedicated to Martin of Tours, one (pictured) dating back to the 13th century , and a larger one dedicated in 1924?
I still think a hook about the "oldest in Munich" angle is the better path forward here. Perhaps something along the likes of "that the church, dating back to the 13th century, is one of the oldest..." or wording to that effect? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
It's only "one of the oldest", which may be ten or what? The unique thing is that there are two, and more action is in the newer one. St. Sylvester is also "one of the oldest", - they found a different solution, building the new one so close that it's connected space. DYK to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, a parish having two or more churches isn't unusual. Being one of the oldest churches in one of the world's major cities is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned before, it's not unique to this place, we could say the same about St. Sylvester. Also, for European standards, both are not exceptionally old. Plus how would you word it, - the article is about the parish, and the official names of the two churches are hopelessly long and Germanish, "Alte Pfarrkirche St. Martin"? (I really thought I found an elegant way around that problem ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Something like "... that the Alte Pfarrkirche St. Martin, one of the oldest churches in Munich, dates back to the 9th century?" or "... that the current building of the Alte Pfarrkirche St. Martin, one of the oldest churches in Munich, dates to the 12th or 13th century?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me, but that's a lot of German, and a fact this place would share with several others. I'll be back with adifferent sugestion, but am on vacation and now out for the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a problem with "one of the oldest", not only that it's shared by several, also that we don't know precisely when first built, and that the pictured building looks quite different from the beginning. I added a bit to the article.
Star singers at St. Martin, Moosach, in 2022
Star singers at St. Martin, Moosach, in 2022
ALT1: ... that star singers from the Munich parish St. Martin, Moosach, (pictured), were received by Angela Merkel in 2012?
ALT2: ... that when star singers from the Munich parish St. Martin, Moosach, (pictured) were sent to bless houses, Annette Thoma's Peasents' Mass was performed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I like ALT1. The issue here is that the article calls Merkel "President" but she was Chancellor, not President (she was never President of Germany). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
fixed, sorry, thinking too American ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 20[edit]

Beate Ulbricht

  • ... that the 1991 murder of Beate Ulbricht, the adopted daughter of Walter Ulbricht, remains unsolved? Source: "... in der Nacht vom 5. auf den 6. Dezember 1991, wurde Beate Matteoli in ihrer Lichtenberger Wohnung erschlagen aufgefunden. Die Umstände des Todes wurden nie aufgeklärt."([7])
    • ALT1: ... that Beate Ulbricht was subjected to harassment by the East German government because her adoptive parents, Walter and Lotte Ulbricht, did not approve of her marriage? Source: "Die Tochter blieb stur, bestand auf ihrer Liebe, heiratete im Oktober 1963 Ivanko Matteoli auf dem Pankower Standesamt und sah nun in das andere Bild „innigster Liebe“: Die Eltern Matteoli erhielten kein Einreisevisum. Die Ulbrichts blieben der Hochzeit fern. Nach der ertrotzten Eheschließung hatte sich die 19-Jährige in der Produktion zu bewähren, als Löterin im VEB Stern-Radio. Kein Studium mehr, keine Königsebene, vielmehr kategorischer Kontaktabbruch. Was einmal Lieblingsprojekt war und zur Megaprojektion taugte, war in Ungnade gefallen. Ab nun galt ein anderes Programm, das der reinsten Härte, dem die abgewiesenen Matteolis versuchten, zu entkommen. Im Februar 1965 wurde Tochter Patricia geboren, und es entstand der Plan, erneut nach Leningrad zu gehen, wo sie sich kennengelernt hatten. Ivanko Matteoli fuhr voraus, um die Übersiedlung vorzubereiten. Nur Stunden nach seiner Abreise wurde seiner Frau der Reisepass abgenommen, beider Post abgefangen, die Familie für zwei Jahre zwangsweise getrennt. In dieser Zeit bestand ihr Alltag vornehmlich aus Dauerkontroversen mit den Eltern, die die Trennung des Paares einforderten." ([8])
    • ALT2: ... that Beate Ulbricht spoke fondly of her adoptive father, Walter, but called her adoptive mother, Lotte, "the hag"? Source: "Beate was on a bottle of vermouth and sixty cigarettes a day. In the series [of interviews she gave German tabloid Super!], headlined, 'Nice Papa, Nasty Lotte,' she placed the blame for her fate squarely on Lotte Ulbricht, whom she called 'the hag.'" (Ghost Strasse: Germany's East Trapped Between Past and Present, p. 6)
    • ALT3: ... that shortly before her murder in 1991, Beate Ulbricht said in an interview that her adoptive father, Walter, was ordered by Stalin to marry Lotte Kühn? Source: "[Beate Ulbricht] maintained that Walter married the infertile Lotte only because Stalin told him to." (Ghost Strasse: Germany's East Trapped Between Past and Present, p. 7)

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:43, 21 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

QPQ: Red XN - ?
Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you, CurryTime7-24. An interesting article, and everyone loves a mystery. Just a few points. (1) QPQ needed. (2) The biography section is a wall of text, and - bearing in mind small screens and short attention spans - it needs to be broken up. So please could we have some subheadings, for example: parentage, adoption, education, relationships and marriage, interview and death. (3) The sentence "At age 2, Ulbricht suffered from health problems in her infancy" is repetitive; we don't need both age 2 and infancy. When those issues are resolved, this nom should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Will fix all the above issues later today. Thank you for reviewing my nom and for letting me know! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Mohnyin Thado

  • ... that King Mohnyin Thado of Ava responded to the troubles of his kingdom by recalibrating the Burmese calendar to year 2? Source: (Aung-Thwin 2017: 88), (Harvey 1925: 99), (Hmannan Vol. 2 2003: 75)
    • ALT1: ... that King Mohnyin Thado of Ava spent much of the royal treasury on constructing 27 religious building projects instead of addressing the widespread rebellions in the kingdom? Source: (Aung-Thwin 2017: 88); The 27 projects are listed in the standard chronicles: (Maha Yazawin Vol. 2 2006: 71), (Yazawin Thit Vol. 1 2012: 281–282) and (Hmannan Vol. 2 2003: 75–76)
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Stolonica socialis

Improved to Good Article status by Hybernator (talk). Self-nominated at 03:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC).

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

Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg The article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and no copyvio is detected. The hook is cited and interesting. A QPQ has been done. Either hook looks fine to me. @Hybernator: the article has not been promoted to GA status yet. Htanaungg (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi @Htanaungg:, thanks for reviewing the article. I expanded the article on December 20th, and nominated on the 25th. That's within the 7-day period, isn't it? Hybernator (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • But, Hybernator, the DYKCheck keeps saying "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days". The revision before you expanded had 7299 characters, and the current version has 26886 characters. So it is assumed that the article has not been 5x expanded yet. Htanaungg (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I see. According to the criteria list, "Was the article created, expanded (5x), moved to mainspace, or promoted to Good Article status within 7 days of the nomination?", 5x expansion isn't the sole criterion for newness. It could also be "promoted to Good Article status within 7 days of the nomination", which I'm seeking for this article. So, you'll probably need to go through the GA nomination criteria, as opposed to normal DYK ones. We may need to double check with other DYK admins. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sure, Hybernator, pls go ahead GA nomination. Once the article is listed as a GA, I'm happy to re-review this DYK nomination again. Thanks. Htanaungg (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To confirm, Hybernator, Htanaungg, the article is not currently eligible for DYK as the expansion was about 3.7x, less than the 5x required (which would have been to 36495 prose characters, not 26886); nearly 10000 short. (It was nominated five days after the expansion, but it needs to be within seven days and a fivefold expansion, and it didn't achieve the latter.) It has two chances at eligibility: a further expansion over the next several days to 36495 prose characters, or to be nominated to be a GA and be approved there. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 22[edit]

John William Kiser

John William Kiser
John William Kiser

Created by Bruxton (talk) and Paloappie (talk). Nominated by Bruxton (talk) at 17:32, 27 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: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Nice work, Bruxton! Interesting article & I think everything looks good. paul2520 💬 20:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @Paul2520 and Bruxton: I'm not sure this checks out—the source says he died with $8m, but it also lists a bunch of other executive jobs that would have made him said butt-tons of money. Is there a source that specifically says he made his fortune in the bicycle business (including putting him over the $999,999 mark)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I see. this may be a better hook:
ATL0a ... that John William Kiser arrived in Chicago poor, and became wealthy making bicycles and horseshoes? Source: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruxton (talk • contribs) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Pinging theleekycauldron (the first ping wouldn't have gone through since the sig was absent) to check to see whether ALT0a solves the issue raised above. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not convinced just yet—the source doesn't say that he founded the horseshoe company, or that the bicycle craze was responsible for his wealth. How about ALT0b: ... that John William Kiser, who arrived in Chicago "practically penniless", took advantage of the "bicycle craze" in forming the Monarch Bicycle company? same source theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Elena Guseva

  • ... that Elena Guseva, a Russian soprano, appeared as Polina when Prokofiev's Der Spieler (The Gambler) was first performed at the Vienna State Opera? Source: [9]
    • Reviewed: to come
    • Comment: sorry, I missed nominating, due 2 days ago - it was ready from the beginning, I just thought of too many other things

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Took a quick look at the article and was thinking that perhaps a hook about the "beautifully dark blazing passion" review would be better here. At the very least it seems more eye-catching than the Polina hook proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    that's true but I try to avoid one reviewers purple prose (+ the loss of meaning in translation) when I have something outstanding and solid: the first time of an opera by a major composer at a major house - shame on Vienna it took them so long - and she was the leading lady. Many readers should at least know the Dostojevsky novel even if not into opera. The critics review could be anywhere, and mean little. It was also at a major house, and I'd agree with his description, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Ludwig Zottmayr. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll give this some more thought. To be honest, I'm not really a fan of this hook at all (it's really niche), but I'm open to approving it if there are no other possible hook facts. I would however suggest that additional hooks be proposed here that don't involve the The Gambler angle. Also pinging theleekycauldron and Storye book and requesting possible input on alternative hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
To say that Prokofiev is niche tells me that I have no way to make you happy. That's a key composer, whose work should be made known even if not his best-known work, or just because of that. We run DYK, not the Love for 3 Oranges all the time, imho. I'd prefer to match the singer from Siberia with a Russian composer rather than a German one, although I saw her in the German opera. Her being chosen to the Vienna State opera - a great honour! - had probably to do with her native tongue which others would have had a hard time to learn. We also connect here to Russian literature, and addiction to roulette which happened in Wiesbaden, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that Prokofiev is niche. In fact, he's probably the most well-known name in the hook. I was referring to the rest of the hook, as while Prokofiev is relatively well-known, I'm not sure if The Gambler is well-known enough among the general readership for the hook to work. Besides, there was just that recent discussion at WT:DYK which suggested that perhaps there should be a move away from opera role hooks and focusing on some other aspect of the lives of the subjects. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
What is so difficult in that I prefer to expose The Gamblers To another Love for 3 Oranges? Role: "Polina" takes only six characters, and most of the hook is informative about the Vieanna State Opera having taken decades to present the work. I saw it in Hannover, George Alexander Albrecht conducting, much earlier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "another 3 Oranges" given that said opera hasn't been featured on DYK. In any case, the point has less to do with the role being mentioned here being Polina and more about how other editors on DYK are also expressing reservations about opera role hooks and that it may be a good idea to move away from that format. There's nothing wrong with featuring Guseva or any other opera performer on DYK and in fact it's entirely doable and encouraged, just that there's probably a better way to do it than having yet another hook about them performing a role in an opera. Like what Kingsif said in that WT:DYK discussion: the ideal way to do things would be to make readers interested in reading about an opera performer by highlighting something funny or quirky about the performer, and then the readers would be enticed to read the article and then learn about their accomplishments in opera. And indeed, as Kingsif said, having hooks about these connections that may not be obvious to the average reader may be counterproductive, and instead it would be a better idea to explain those in the article itself rather than in the hook. After all, there's really only so much you can do with 200 characters.
For example, if there was an baritone who studied dentistry in college, then what could be done would be to write a hook about that baritone being a licensed dentist, then readers, thinking that a baritone being a dentist is unusual, would then read the article and learn that this baritone performed such-and-such role in such-and-such opera among many other accomplishments. It just seems more effective than mentioning immediately some role in some opera by some composers, none of whom may be that well known to the average reader.
Having come from a family with some musical links myself (my late grandmother was a pianist and her uncle was a composer known for being the namesake of the main theater of the Cultural Center of the Philippines), I'm probably more aware of some of the composer names compared to the typical reader, but remember that we write for a general audience, a lot of whom may not be interested in opera, and so we need to appeal to them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: besides the obvious issues you mention, I'm quite concerned that the hook fact isn't even in the article. It says She appeared [...] at the Theater Basel as Polina in Prokofiev's Der Spieler and, in the other paragraph, In 2017, Guseva performed as Polina in the first production of Prokofief's work at the Vienna State Opera. That should be resolved first, I would think, before we get to the hooks. I feel like I need to keep reminding Gerda of the time she didn't want to pass one of my hooks purely on the basis she hadn't heard of SXSW... of course, I'd probably just fail this one on "nothing interesting in article to work with" and "not new enough at time of nom anyway" if you don't want to IAR on that. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif, I don't see how the hook fact is not in the article, please explain. Being a young singer from a far-away country, and still be called to sing a lead role at one of the major houses of the world, in a production that finally did justice to a great work of art, seems an interesting enough fact, and is not a role hook. (If we just said she was Polina in such and such opera, that would be role hook.) It should be more interesting even to an average reader than that she first studied to be a choral conductor, or has a voice that one particular critic heard dark passion, imho. - I was just reminded (in a FAC) to never use an abbreviation without explanation, and think we should try to avoid it even hooks as much as possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
...she first studied to be a choral conductor... Perhaps a hook about that might actually be a good idea? Something like "... that Russian soprano Elena Guseva originally studied to be a chorale conductor?" Personally I thought that a singer originally wanting to be a conductor was interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Gerda, I did explain, please actually read my comment: in one part of the article, it says she performed in Der Spieler at the Basel Theatre. In a separate part, it says she performed in a Prokofiev work (also spelled differently, so to an unaware reader it could be a different composer with a similar name…) at the Vienna State Opera. Nowhere does it say she was in Der Spieler at the Vienna State Opera.
Now, you say that Being a young singer from a far-away country, and still be called to sing a lead role at one of the major houses of the world, in a production that finally did justice to a great work of art, seems an interesting enough fact and the thing is, it would be. However, the hook is just "performer performs", and the article is absolutely no better. It is a prose list of works, it does not have any notes on how young she was, on how being from a different country is unusual in opera, how important the theatre is, any reviews of her performance. You infer these majestic facts because you know about the world of opera, and even people who know some operas and performers do not know all that, and neither the hook nor the article in this case are going to educate them. If by now you cannot see that, you're only going to cause more friction. And yes, the conductor fact would be more interesting, because to the uninitiated it is unusual to change ambition like that. (FTR, the hook said South by Southwest, I only abbreviated here for ease of typing.) Kingsif (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif, sorry about the misspelling of the composer's name. I also repeated the name of the opera (which I'd normally not do, as repetitive, but I try to please). As we don't have a birth year, we don't know exactly how young she was, but this happened less than 10 years after she completed studies which is amazing. If you look at sources for opera singers, they focus on which role where, because that defines where in the opera world a singer is positioned (example in English). It isn't "performer performs", - it makes all the difference performing what and where, that's what opera goers want to know, nor if the person changed ambition. - I just return from a great vacation day, and I promised to add to a church before I left. I'll try to please you more here but please be patient, and understand that from Christmas to now, and for weeks to come, my focus is not on Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Whether the location is important in the opera world and what opera goers want to know is kind of irrelevant. A film premiering at Grauman's Chinese Theatre or Odeon Luxe Leicester Square is impressive, but I only expect film nerds to know that, I wouldn't write or accept a hook that relies on both knowing and really understanding that. Especially if the article doesn't even mention the significance. And even if you could go to each Main Page reader and tell them "this benign-sounding fact matters in the opera world", just knowing that doesn't automatically make it matter to them. If anything, it makes opera more inaccessible to the layperson because it is giving them more niche pieces of information that they can't appreciate without being invested, and could make them worry that to appreciate any part of opera they need to be that deeply invested. Like, you keep saying that writing things about the popular operas seems obvious/boring to you, but that is still more than most people know, and if you can't fully explain your advanced opera niche stuff (the why it is interesting) concisely enough for a hook, what are we to do? Now, I can understand that you're busy, fine, but DYK has always expected timely responses, you must know that; if you're too busy for it, do we give you another exceptional pass, or say maybe don't nominate things that you're too busy to see to? Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5: To elucidate, a hook that said "… that Elena Guseva performed in a leading role at the renowned Vienna State Opera less than ten years into her career?", would probably be fine, because it plays up why it should be interesting to people who don't know. You would need to expand the article to mention the "leading role", "renowned", and "less than ten years" parts. Of course, if you have all this kind of information to bring up in DYK I don't know why you don't put it in your articles in the first place, it would expedite the process. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
As said before, patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: You don't have to reply to comments or pings immediately, you have seven days, you know this. So replying just to demand patience is… something. If you don't have time, I won't brusquely instruct you to hurry up, don't worry, but I would fail this already-late nom as we would with anyone else. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I added to the other article as promised first. Now I'm too tired to add to this one, but plan to do so tomorrow. For now, in the name of compromise, a hook based on what's there already, as suggested above:

ALT1: ... that when Elena Guseva appeared as Marietta in Korngold's Die tote Stadt, a reviewer noted her intense timbre and "beautifully dark blazing passion"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm willing to approve ALT1 or a variation of the suggestion above about her originally wanting to be a conductor. I would just like to note here that given you have made several nominations that were a day or two late, IAR may already be exhausted and thus any future late nominations may be quickfailed even if they were only late by a day or two. The time requirement is seven days and generally we need to adhere to that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Elena Guseva said, preparing the role of Polina in Prokofiev's The Gambler at the Vienna State Opera, that having studied to be a choral conductor "helped her extremely" to analyse that score?
I added a bit to the article. Having said that, I still believe that the original is strong and short:
  1. It illustrates her focus on Russian characters, which ALT1 doesn't.
  2. It gives the "ordinary reader" an interesting title, + two generally known words: "Prokofiev" and "Vienna State Opera".
  3. It alludes (Polina, The Gambler) to Dostojewsky which some may recognise.
  4. It expands knowledge of a less-known work.
  5. It illustrates that she was called for a special occasion.
  6. I also realise that both ALTs rely heavily on translation, and I can't tell if what Deepl gives me for the critic's wording is really what the German says.
More generally: you said well that I'm interested in promoting opera, which means not only the singers, therefore a general "lead role at major house after a few years" is not my way. We recently had the Talk:Johann-Werner Prein hook which exposed a composer and his work banned by the Nazis, and I'm please that the composer (866) and especially his work (1,037) received more hits than the singer (767). The same condition would be true for ALT1 but we shouldn't play the Nazi card too often ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT2 has promise, but I think it needs a bit of copyediting. perhaps it can be changed to "while preparing for the role of Polina..., Elena Guseva..."? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila

  • ... that the type specimen of Dudleya pumila is actually the only accurate representation of Dudleya cymosa in its range, so D.pumila became a subspecies? Source: Nakai, Kei M. (1987). “Some New and Reconsidered California Dudleya (Crassulaceae)”. Madroño. 34(4): 338–339.

Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Walter D. Van Riper

Created by Toyonbro (talk). Nominated by Leomk0403 (talk) at 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you for this article. A nice plant. Just a few issues. (1) I hope we can liven up the hook and find a picture - you have some good pictures in the article - what about one of those? (2) There's nothing actually wrong with the hook - I'm just not sure whether even a biologist would find the taxonomy hooky. According to the article, it grows in some great places and quite high up - could we mention that it grows in some interesting high-up location? (3) The first para in the description section needs a citation. If we can resolve the above 3 issues, this nom should be OK. Storye book (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this article is DYK-worthy. The species it was moved to is not even monophyletic. The taxonomy for this genus is very convoluted and I don't think a layman could understand unless they read the genus page. = Toyonbro (talk) January 10, 2022

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 26[edit]

Hawkstone Lager

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Reviewing...new enough, QPQ provided, no copyvio issues. @The C of E:... is there an image? Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Whispyhistory: I didn't upload one because I wasn't sure on the copyright status of the logo due to the H on it being different. I wasn't sure if it made was eligible for not reaching the threashold of originality for text. I can upload it if you think it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I had the same thought as I can upload one too...may be someone else knows. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Hook in article followed by inline citation to source with hook info.... I uploaded an image... add if you like..probably ok for article but not for dyk and you can probably do a better one. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg - Re-opened WT:DYK. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg A new hook will need to be used; the original one has been vetoed by me, as noted at WT:DYK#For fuck's sake. (There is a suggestion there for using the Birmingham/Spain banned advertisement as the subject of an alternate hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: What was factually wrong with it? ALT1 ... that an advert for Hawkstone Lager made using ingredients from Jeremy Clarkson's farm, was banned because it contained Clarkson drinking the beer in the morning before work? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The question you should be asking is "What was wrong with it?", but that should have been obvious from the WT:DYK discussion. Since it apparently wasn't: Aside from the fact that you have filled in the asterisks from the source, the main problem is with your tone-deaf attempt to unnecessarily put profanity on the main page, which is a perfectly valid and reasonable use of the veto. (ALT1 has promise, though I'm pretty sure that the advert wasn't made using the farm ingredients, but rather the lager itself. How about an ALT1a that's clearer in its wording?) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that The C of E is now indefinitely topic-banned from DYK, someone else will need to do ALT1a. Another possibility could be a hook about how the original name was "Lager McLagerface", which was vetoed for not having a premium feel. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Giving this a shot:
ALT2 ... that Hawkstone Lager was originally planned to be called "Lager McLagerface", but the name was rejected for not conveying a premium image?
The issue right now is that the sentence is currently uncited in the article (the nearest reference to it, [10], doesn't mention it); however, other sources do mention it, such as [11] and The Times). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg This product is being promoted in an unconventional way – see guerilla advertising and viral marketing. Featuring the product in any way on the main page would be participation in the campaign, helping to amplify the buzz that it's trying to generate. While the campaign is running, there is therefore no way to promote the hook without promoting the product and so violating supplementary rule F10. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT3 ... that a new beer was originally planned to be called "Lager McLagerface", but the brand name was rejected for failing to convey a premium image? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 17 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 28[edit]

RAF Chia Keng

  • ... that the RAF Chia Keng was demolished to build a Japanese-style celemetry and park? Source: [12] - "I was able to locate the Japanese Cemetery and then part of the S bends on the Yio Chu Kang Road...", chosen primary source due to very limited amount of source covered
    this isn't what was stated in the source, the cemetery has always been there for quite a long time. An entire cemetery was demolished to make way for a new neighbourhood, there is certainly not enough space to build new ones --Nigos 14:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • ... that during the Konfrontasi, RAF Chia Keng was used to break and read secret Indonesian messages? Source: [13] - "According to Campbell, “GCHQ could break and read Indonesian codes without difficulty.”" (added by Nigos)
  • ... that Singapore served as a base for British intelligence during the Cold War, including hosting a GCHQ monitoring site? Sources: The Guardian - "Singapore was the location of a GCHQ monitoring site."; Shaw 2019 pp. 6-7 - "The JIC(FE), SIFE and SIS(FE) all sat at the ‘regional’ level, using Singapore as a base (and conceptual focal point) for activities across Southeast Asia. This was closely tied with the ‘national’ priorities of British intelligence" (added by Nigos)
  • ... that RAF Chia Keng was the first GCHQ monitoring station in the Far East? Source: Shaw 2019 p. 71 - "Only in 1951 were plans enacted to create a GCHQ-administered signals centre alongside the existing RAF Chia Keng intercept station in Singapore" added by Nigos
    • Reviewed: [[]]
    • Comment: I nominate the article on behalf of @Nigos:, and this is the best DYK that I can make by my poor humor skill, enjoy!

5x expanded by Nigos (talk). Nominated by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) at 13:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC).

Not yet 5x expanded: Sorry Nigos but when you started to expand this article on 28 December 2021, the article had 1162 readable characters. It now has 4753, according to DYK Check. To have been expanded 5x, it would need to have 5810 readable characters now.

This nomination can wait while you expand it further to 5801 or more characters, if you like. Note that you cannot use the byte-count on the article's history page to gauge the size of the article, because that includes non-readable characters. You need to use the DYK check link. (I cannot review it now, in case the content changes when you expand it further). @CactiStaccingCrane: Storye book (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it can’t wait. The expansion is supposed to happen within 7 days. You are at day 11. There can be some leniency but you want to get the expansion done pronto or else this nomination will have to be failed. Sorry. Schwede66 17:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh alright then. Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 7 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)

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)

Truck-kun

Created by ISD (talk). Self-nominated at 11:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Comment: I don't usually involve myself in DYKs but happened to see this one while looking at the article. Unless this is for an April 1 DYK or something, I oppose any wording that doesn't clearly state that this is about fiction. "a common way to travel to another world in Japanese fiction is..." might work.--AlexandraIDV 09:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Personally speaking, I'm happy to be added to the April 1 DYK if everyone else are happy with that. Otherwise, I don't mind using the hook @Alexandra IDV: proposes. ETA if anyone wants to make a picture of Wikipe-tan and Truck-kun together, I would happily support it, as that might help it towards the April 1 inclusion. ISD (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm dead. Please do this. That's all. wizzito | say hello! 04:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I hope the above user was not hit by a truck. Flibirigit (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't know, but I think Kasuga~enwiki is no longer on the site, so if we do make a Wikipe-tan picture, it may have to be someone else. ISD (talk) 18:19, 12 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: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you for a fun hook, and an interesting article. You are exempt from providing a QPQ since you have four DYKs in total. This nomination is fit to be promoted in my opinion, but I have temporarily delayed it by giving it a query status in case you want to wait for an image to be created. I agree that this nom should be saved for 1 April. Storye book (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi. I don't think I am exempt and this is my 70th DYK, but I think that this doesn't matter in overall nomination. I'll post a message on the WP:ANIME talk page looking for anyone who is happy to do an image. If this article is to go up on 1 April, feel free to move to the April Fools DYK section. ISD (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, my apologies, ISD, I didn't realise you had 70 DYKs. Please would you now do a QPQ for us? QPQ done, thank you.
  • Re the 1 April request - as I understand it, nominations have to be completed before going to the holding page, so this needs to stay here with the query status, so that we can wait for the image. I'll see that admin knows that it must go to the 1 April page when you have a picture. Storye book (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Storye book, the April Fools' page has a section for those nominations awaiting verification, so I'm placing this one there now. (The nominations can be on the Nominations page and the April Fools' page at the same time; it's when the nomination is Approved that it lives only on at April Fools'.) Also, there isn't a requirement that the nomination have an image to be run, and no guarantee that even if an image is created the hook will be selected for the lead spot. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, BlueMoonset, for placing this on the April Fools page. That is much appreciated. Meanwhile, I would like to give the nominator ISD a chance to wait for an image if it is important to them. At the moment, an image still might be a possibility. Even if the promoter cannot use it, it's still worth a try, because at least then we would still have a picture on the article. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone. Regarding the image, it would be nice if someone was able to make one, but it is not essential to the article. I would say that if I have not had a reply to my requests for someone to make an image withing about a week, forget about the image and just make it an ordinary fact. ISD (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: You're in luck. I wouldn't have done this if anyone else had offered to do it, but since that didn't happen, I have just organised a small and simple manga-style cartoon of a manga character being hit by a truck, and that should be ready for upload on a free licence within about a week. No worries if you don't like it. Please watch this space? Storye book (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure I'll keep an eye on things. All sounds good to me. ISD (talk) 18:20, 14 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[14] 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[15]. --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?[16] —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 [17]. 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

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 01:21, 2 January 2022 (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 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. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:14, 10 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)

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 4[edit]

Preet Chandi

Preet Chandi
Preet Chandi

Created by Cbderbylib (talk), Kaybeesquared (talk), SanjitChudha (talk), Mmberney (talk), and Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 20:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided. I like the original hook the best because it's the most easily readable; hook is cited inline and verified. While Earwigs detected a match with this site, it's only due to the block quotes in the article, which are properly cited. My only concern is that ALT0's wording doesn't exactly match the article text: the hook says that she was the first woman of color to walk solo to the South Pole, but the article instead states that it is "believed" that she is the first to do so. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • try this source instead which clears up the doubt... or I suggest that the journos did only believe this to be true but surely after this claim has been made and no one has contested it then it would seem to me that its veracity is enough for a DYK hook as the article makes the detail clear. If you insist then we could go for Alt2 or 3 which smudge that fact Victuallers (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Alt2 ... that while Preet Chandi was (probably) becoming the first woman of colour to walk solo to the South Pole, she was contacting friends to be her bridesmaids?
  • Alt3 ... that while Preet Chandi was contesting to be the first woman of colour to walk solo to the South Pole, she was contacting friends to be her bridesmaids?
  • Alt4 ... that while Preet Chandi was becoming "the first woman of colour to walk solo to the South Pole", she was contacting friends to be her bridesmaids?
The article still says "believed to be the first" and so that will need to be resolved before any hook fact that mentions "first woman of colour to walk solo" is approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have removed the word "believed" from the article and changed the ref to support the statement without that word. It may be useful to note that Black History Month (US version) starts on 1 Feb. Victuallers (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Rereading the sources again, they all do say "thought to be the first" (even the CNN source says "believed") and so I think the word believed needs to remain in the hook and the article. I think some variation of ALT0 would work as long as the "believed" part remains. Perhaps reword it to start with something like "that Preet Chandi, believed to be..., contacted friends to be her bridesmaids while on her expedition?" or wording to that effect. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I cannot see there is a great deal of difference between "probably" in Alt2 and "believed" or alt3 which doesnt even make the claim that she was the first... but you seem very insistant that the word is used. I tried modding the main hook but it is too clunky. Better to leave the claim entirely I think - I have rephrased to the less hooky alt5. Victuallers (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll give this a shot since I believe that her being the first woman of colour is central to the hook. Maybe something like this?
ALT6 ... that during her expedition, Preet Chandi, believed to be the first woman of colour to walk solo to the South Pole, was contacting friends to be bridesmaids?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
OK lets go with your hook Victuallers (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the edits. One last thing: the year of birth needs a citation. Some of the articles about her give an age so I think those should work as references. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    I thank you for your work, but this is not a GA review. You don't get to spot errors, list them here and get others to fix them for you while you keep the nomination hostage. If you see an error then please just fix it or realise that DYK articles are not perfect but works in progress. If you find another thing that IYO "must be" fixed then please just fix it, ask for another reviewer or just assume this nomination is withdrawn. Victuallers (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 5[edit]

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)

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 compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.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)

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. [19] [20]
    • 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 8[edit]

Declan Costello

  • ALT3 ...that in 1955 Jackie Kennedy teased former love interest Declan Costello that a double date between them and their spouses almost broke up the Kennedys' marriage?

5x expanded by CeltBrowne (talk). Self-nominated at 00:33, 10 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, CeltBrowne, for this well-researched and comprehensive biography. Just two issues: (1) I think you may be exempt from QPQ, but please let us know if you have done 5 or more DYKs previously? (2) Multiple examples of plagiarism. Compare Dictionary of Irish Biography and Earwig. Please present the copied bits, in the article, as quotations with citations where possible, and rephrase the rest of the copied bits. Storye book (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O'Brien, Shane (25 April 2020). "Jackie Kennedy almost married a successful Irish lawyer". Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  2. ^ Parsons, Michael (2 June 2014). "Jackie Kennedy and the Costello family". Irish Times. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  3. ^ Hayes, Katy. "Jacqueline Kennedy brought to life in St Stephen's Green while the Queen of Technicolor is remembered in Dundalk". Irish Independent. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  4. ^ Parson, Michael (15 May 2014). "How Jackie Bouvier almost married an Irish lawyer". Irish Times. Retrieved 10 January 2022.

Articles created/expanded on January 9[edit]

Goo Hara

  • ALT1: ... that the South Korean inheritance law was amended in 2020 with what is known as the Goo Hara Act to prevent a parent from claiming inheritance if they had neglected their parental duties?

Improved to Good Article status by Robertsky (talk). Self-nominated at 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

  • I've restructured the hook as ALT1 for readability and simplified it by dropping the month (which seems irrelevant). Schwede66 00:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

1971 Howard Bison men's soccer team

  • ... that the NCAA vacated the first Division I national championship won by an HBCU in any sport? Source: "The sharpest blow of all, in fact, had come the previous January, when the NCAA had stripped Howard of its 1971 national soccer championship and placed the program on probation for the '73 season for having used four ineligible players. The title had been the first Division I championship in any sport ever won by a predominantly black college" -- Sports Illustrated

Moved to mainspace by Alyo (talk). Self-nominated at 20:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 10[edit]

Umar Zahir (politician)

Umar Zahir
Umar Zahir
  • ... that Umar Zahir (pictured) built both an island of trash and an island of hope? Source: "Some of the significant projects undertaken under his leadership include the reclamation of Thilafushi Island, contributions during the initial reclamation phase of Hulhumalé,..."[21]; Thilafushi:"Welcome to 'trash island'"[22]; Hulhumalé:"A new island of hope rising from the Indian Ocean"[23]

Created by Joofjoof (talk). Self-nominated at 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

Māngere Bridge, New Zealand

Improved to Good Article status by Prosperosity (talk). Self-nominated at 00:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

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