Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Did you know...?" template
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Nominations WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Removed hooks WP:DYKREMOVED
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK.

Contents

TOC:   ↓ Go to bottom ↓     ↑ Go to top ↑
List of DYK Hooks by Date
Date # of Hooks # Verified
June 24 1
June 25 1
June 30 1
July 11 1
July 19 2
July 24 2
July 25 1
August 1 2 1
August 2 1
August 5 1 1
August 10 1
August 11 1
August 13 2
August 14 3
August 15 4
August 16 1
August 18 1
August 19 1 1
August 20 1
August 21 1
August 22 3
August 23 2 1
August 24 1
August 25 3
August 26 3
August 27 4
August 28 1
August 29 2
August 30 1
August 31 5 1
September 1 5 2
September 2 3 1
September 3 3 1
September 4 4
September 5 7 2
September 6 13 1
September 7 6 1
September 8 2 1
September 9 2 1
September 10 7 2
September 11 3 2
September 12 4 1
September 13 7 2
September 14 6 1
September 15 5 1
September 16 4 1
September 17 9 3
September 18 5 3
September 19 5 2
September 20 5 4
September 21 6
September 22 6 2
September 23 8 4
September 24 8 4
September 25 3 1
September 26 4 3
September 27 6 2
September 28 2
September 29
Total 202 53
Last updated 10:56, September 29, 2016 (UTC)
Current time is 11:20, 29 September 2016 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

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

To nominate an article[edit]

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.

For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.
II.
Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.
III.
Post at Template talk:Did you know.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading—​​the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

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

Where is my hook?[edit]

If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings.

If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]


Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there is usually 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.
    • Leave a comment explaining that the hook was removed from the queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
    • If the day title for the section that contained the hook has been removed from this page, restore that section.
  • 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.
  • Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed

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 June 24[edit]

It's Not Me, It's You (game show)

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

  • Launchballer - I question whether or not this is actually notable enough for an article after just one episode? Are tellymix.com and UKGameshows.com considered reliable sources? the fourth one is a primary source by the channel itself and the first one (Digital spy) is basically a press release "it's coming". I am just not seeing how this passes the General Notability Guideline?  MPJ-DK  23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what policy he was quoting, but apparently being a weekly show on a national TV channel is an indication of notability. It's late in my country, but later on I'll have a look.--Launchballer 23:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Launchballer So the policy that "he" (that would be me, please don't talk past me like I am beneath you) refers to is just one of the foundations of WIkipedia - articles must be notable, if you don't know it then I can reccomend it as nighttime read. You want another link from "that guy"? How about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, so that does not really convince me that this should stay. Please try to remain civil and perhaps not so defensive?  MPJ-DK  00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted my message. Please read "he" as "the IP"; if you follow the link I have provided, it will take you to an edit made by an IP deprodding an article I had prodded, with his/her rationale being that "being a weekly show on a national TV channel is an indication of notability". Again, I have no idea where that idea was obtained, but I wasn't talking past you, and I think I had better go to bed to avoid causing further offence! I will have another look for sources in the morning.--Launchballer 00:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Launchballer Ah shoot, I totally took that wrong, I apologize for my own uncivility.  MPJ-DK  00:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Even so, I wonder about the notability. There aren't any reviews, as MPJ-DK notes the Digital Spy source has sparse detail about the (then) forthcoming show, tellymix.com strikes me as a very dubious source (the page about the Writers is filled with grammatical issues, which is highly unprofessional), and the rest are primary sources. Indeed, the bulk of the article is Launchballer's description of what he saw, and the format seems to be changing from episode to episode (based on the first two episodes), which does not inspire confidence in the format assumptions being made. At the moment, even if the IP is right about notability—which I think is open to question—this isn't ready for main page highlighting via DYK without far better sourcing than is currently provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's another few sources. The two episodes I've seen are on Demand 5; would you like links to the articles?--Launchballer 12:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, as the hook is dependent on the tellymix source that I found very dubious for the reasons expressed, and you haven't even tried to convinced me that it is reliable, this nomination is still not ready and its one hook is in doubt. (It also isn't very interesting: if it was originally commissioned for an hour, so what? Most people won't know that broadcast episodes run 45 minutes, so they'll have no basis for comparison. Please try for a truly interesting hook.) Regarding the new sources, the first two were added in Background and deal with occurrences prior to the show (and unrelated to it), and don't establish notability for this show. The ChronicleLive source, which at first glance would seem to be exactly what I was asking for in terms of reviews, reads like a fanboy gushing about Vicki Pattison. I'm not knowledgeable about the British press: is ChronicleLive a reliable source (an offshoot, perhaps, of a magazine or television show)? If it is, then it should be included, but probably not more than you already have. As for the Demand 5 articles, as they're primary sources, they won't help notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
ChronicleLive is a local paper representing Pattison's home turf, the North East, and owned by Trinity Mirror. Most of the press coverage for the show gushes even more violently about the two team captains "Kelly Brook smoulders as she finishes filming It's Not Me, It's You" is the contents of most of them. The Express reviewed the last episode; while it's not a reliable source for fact, I'm happy to take the reviewer's opinion as valid.
ALT1: ... that It's Not Me, It's You has been described as a "more formal Celebrity Juice"? or
ALT2: ... It's Not Me, It's You? (I reckon readers will want to know what's them.)--Launchballer 18:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, thanks for removing that tellymix source. I've struck the original hook. (Did you notice that the Duke review says the show is 45 minutes, while the Baylis review says half an hour?) ALT1 really isn't interesting to most people; it might be a bit interesting to people who know Celebrity Juice, but I feel that we can't base a hook off of how the network (or is BT an online rebroadcaster, like Hulu?) describes a show in its own listing. It's a biased source trying to hype its own program. As for the ALT2 hook, it's more April Fools' Day fodder, because it depends on misrepresenting the article title (which should be in italics since it's a television show), something that's only allowed for April 1 hooks. Would you want this to be an April Fools' Day hook (which would mean nearly a nine month wait), or would you prefer to suggest other hooks? The one thing you haven't mentioned is that this is a dating-themed show; that might be able to be worked into something reasonably interesting along with the show's title. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, why didn't you say so? I'm autistic, so dating is very uninteresting to me. I wrote/watch this because I like panel shows. I did notice the Baylis inaccuracy, which was why I was so reticent to use it initially, but I think he may have got half-hour from being the same advertisers' anathema that I am; skipping the commercials. BT, for the purposes of that source, isn't really a network, rather a television platform like Freeview (UK). Would ALT3: ... It's Not Me, It's You? solve that problem, and if not ALT4: ... that It's Not Me, It's You sees Kelly Brook and Vicky Pattison interacting with potential dates using a live video Tinder-style swipe screen?--Launchballer 11:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset What's another name for a call-and-lose contest? It comes across as a bit grumpy but I can't think what they're supposed to be called. (As it transpires, both Duke and Baylis were right - episode 5's been reduced to half an hour.)--Launchballer 12:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Launchballer: All of your alternate hooks were linking to a completely unrelated album, rather than the game show they were supposed to be linking to. I have changed the link targets. Pppery (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, I think ALT3 would only fly as an April Fool's hook (I'm not sure whether ALT2 would be allowed even for that day). You could try a non-April Fool's version by adding a regular "that" before it, but I kind of doubt that would pass muster. As for ALT4, the hook material comes from a primary source, and my assumption is that "Tinder-style swipe screen" is your own characterization, and hence not acceptable—if it came from a secondary source description, then it could be if properly cited. As for "call-and-lose contest", I have no idea what it is. Sorry I can't help you with that. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that It's Not Me, It's You? Tinder-style swipe screen is a truncated form of "live video Tinder-style game on a giant swipe screen". As for call-and-lose contest, one of these.--Launchballer 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Launchballer:Your ALT5 hook links to the wrong target again. I jusgt fixed the target Pppery (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Launchballer, if a fact isn't properly sourced in the article, you can't use it for the hook. Instead of giving me an external link, you've been at DYK long enough to know that you should be including that web page as an inline source citation in the article for that particular phrase, and being sure it's not so close as to be a copyvio. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It's in there now, I deliberately didn't include it the first time round because I thought it was a primary source.--Launchballer 20:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to opine and check on the ALT4 and ALT5 hooks, and whether the sources given for the latter is sufficient (it's certainly better than have the show be its own source, as was previously the case), and for the article as a whole. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article was new enough when first proposed, and long enough; all non-lead paragraphs have citations, no copyvio or close paraphrasing (Earwig’s flawed analysis and problems with block quotes noted). QPQ has been completed. ALT5 doesn’t qualify under DYK rules, lacking any source citation. ALT4 is concise enough at 141 characters, though a little difficult to follow, but the source for the hook is a promotional webpage for the show’s lighting contractor, so a first cousin to a primary source, not quite independent. Which brings us to the general sourcing issues: while it may be possible to find more independent, reliable sources, as this article stands today (nearly 3 months after its initial DYK nomination, and well after the entire first season of the show is completed) there are only 3 sources which appear to be independent, and none of those three discuss It’s Not Me, It’s You' in any depth, though one could almost count as a review of one of the show’s stars. The remaining sources are all primary, including the video episodes and an interview with one star. Launchballer has made a valiant effort to produce an article out of an impoverishment of good sources, and I can only observe the wisdom of that old saw about a silk purse out of sow’s ears. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on June 25[edit]

Élizabeth Teissier

Created by Adam Cuerden (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 5544 characters
    • ✗ Paragraphs [4] (Elizabeth ... results.),[5] (A ... (73%)) in this article lack a citation.
      • I think it was clear before, but I've made it explicit that it's covered by the cite at the end of the section. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✗ There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 23.1% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
        • I don't think this is meaningful; it appears to be catching titles and quotes and such. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 69 characters
  • ✓ This is Adam Cuerden's' 3th nomination. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 2 more DYKs.
    • I think that's not counting some very old ones, but no matter: I did a QPQ. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 17:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg I have reviewed the article and the bot's comments above. I agree with all of the ticks given by the bot, and accept the explanations by Adam regarding the crosses. To summarize, the article is new enough, having been created two days ago. It is certainly long enough, with three sections and several sub-sections. Considering the potentially controversial nature of the subject, I think it is neutrally written. I assume good faith on the French-language sources. The article appears clear of any copyright problems. The hook is short, within policy and topical. QPQ has been performed. The only issue I wish to bring to the nominator Adam Cuerden's attention is that the first paragraph of the "Career" subsection about her modelling is unsourced. Apart from that I think it is ready to go. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll check if it's covered in one of the nearby sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Athomeinkobe: It wasn't covered, so I rewrote the section a bit to match the sources I found. Google is blocking some articles from me under the Right to privacy laws of Europe; I'll need to poke around with other search engines once I'm home and see what comes up, and whether I can source the original, more detailed text. Is it good to go as it stands, though? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol confirmed.svg I've fixed some minor punctuation problems, so it looks ok to me now. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this nomination from prep as the rules say "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided" and in my view, losing a lawsuit counts as a negative aspect. Could we please pick another hook? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Élizabeth Teissier claims to have predicted Black Monday and the fall of the Berlin Wall? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, hell no. We are not doing a pro-astrology hook, that's a violation of WP:FRINGE, a subset of WP:NPOV - one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. The original is fine - it's well sourced, and is something she got plenty of press coverage about; it should never, never have been pulled. The new one - besides actual policy violations - also uses claims of success explicitly sourced only to the astrologer, ignoring that the article actually has a reliable source independently testing her success rate, which proved negative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine. It doesn't say she did predict those events, just that she claims to. It's interesting enough to make someone want to read more, where they'll learn about her actual success rate. clpo13(talk) 15:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Adam Cuerden. In it's current form the article clearly introduces affirmative claims regarding astrology, a subject that the community has long considered to be a Fringe Theory. The lack of any explanation that astrology is considered fringe violates both WP:DUE and WP:PROFRINGE. We do not allow articles to be used for the promotion of fringe theories and we certainly do not post articles with pro-fringe material on the Front Page. Mentioning fringe beliefs is not prohibited. Failing to include a clear statement explaining that such beliefs are not generally accepted and why, is. In its current form this article cannot be linked on the Front Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Oh, come. How is it pro-astrology? It includes lengthy analysis of her accuracy, and discusses the controversy about her defense of astrology. I can't see it as any way promotional of astrology (although the hook is, by taking one of the only sentences that's at all pro-astrology in the article, and choosing that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I took another look at it and agree that there is a pretty strong refutation of her particular claims, though I would like to see at least a sentence stating that the scientific community regards astrology as bunk, or words to that effect. I will remove the tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Clpo13. I've already read the article in this case, but even in general, any sentence such as "X claims to have predicted Y" (as opposed to an affirmative statement "X predicted Y") activates my bullshit detector. So I would not call this ALT blurb "pro-astrology". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It may activate your bullshit detector, but we aren't writing for you; we're writing for everyone, and that kind of "coded" warning is only going to work on people who are already skeptical of such claims. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I just struck the original hook because it was the one that was pulled, and ALT1 given the objections of Adam Cuerden. I'm also copying over the following two posts by Gatoclass and Adam Cuerden from the WT:DYK#Prep 2: Élizabeth Teissier discussion, since they seem to point the way to a possible new hook (which needs to be written). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well, Adam Cuerden, I think we could have a hook about the fact that she was controversially awarded a doctorate for a defence of astrology (assuming I have read the article correctly). That certainly strikes me as a very interesting and unusual fact worth highlighting. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    That seems fair. It's just having a hook pulled - and replaced with a suggestion for an arguably pro-astrology one isn't exactly what one wants to wake up to, you know? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find that this nomination hasn't moved on yet.

  • ALT2: ... that Élizabeth Teissier was controversially awarded a doctorate in sociology for a thesis in defence of astrology? Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I can live with that, but I still say the original hook is better and nearer DYK's original mandate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    With all due respect, I wasn't keen on the original hook either, because I think it wasn't informative enough. It tells you absolutely nothing about who Teissier is or what she is known for. It doesn't even explain what she was suing about. I'm strongly opposed to hooks that read like clickbait, that fail to give adequate information about a topic simply in order to incite curiosity. Your hook may, or may not, have attracted more page hits, but page hits are far from the sole criterion by which hooks are selected. In any case, while I may be biased, I think my alt above is pretty interesting, there can't be too many people getting doctorates these days for defences of astrology! Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT2 is now ready for review. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol question.svg It still seems to have a negative focus. We generally avoid the word "controversially" in BLP hooks. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Per Gatoclass, the doctorate "in" astrology is in itself pretty interesting. So we could have
    StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It waas controversial. We can't violate Wikipedia policies because you don't want to say a major scandal was a major scandal. NPOV - which includes WP:Fringe theories - is more important than saying nice things that also distort the documented facts, because you don't want to offend someone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Adam here. "Controversially" is not a banned word at DYK, and the fact that something is controversial does not necessarily imply a negative - it just means there is disagreement about something. In this case, the award has clearly triggered a major controversy in academia and I think it would smack of censorship if we were to avoid reference to that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    The only time it was used in anything BLP-related was for the song White Privilege II. Here it is certainly negative, for it implies that Teissier and/or her work was not worthy of a doctorate. DYK hooks are censored - we don't have a policy of excluding negative material from BLPs, but we do from BLP-related DYK hooks. StAnselm (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    On reflection, I think ALT3 is still a good hook, even without the word "controversially", and would still make a good quirky. So maybe we should just go with that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Despite the person who wrote the article being strongly against it, as it implies that astrology is an academically-accepted discipline? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we could rephrase the hook somewhat to accommodate StAnselm's concerns. However, for the following hook to work, I think something would have to be added to the article regarding the wider debate about the definition of sociology that has apparently been going on:
  • (ALT4) ... that Élizabeth Teissier's award of a doctorate for a thesis defending astrology has sharpened a debate among sociologists about the nature of their discipline? Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have put an ALT4 label on Gatoclass' suggestion, but I think the best alternative so far is ALT2. Reading ALT2 I think "yeah, I bet it was controversial, I wonder how that happened", whereas ALT3 makes me think "I wonder what tin-pot university would give a doctorate for astrology, was it basically a degree factory?" ALT4 gives me a WTF feeling - do sociologists seriously debate whether astrology is part of their discipline, don't they realise it is pseudoscientific bilge? Frankly, a doctorate in defence of astrology that was not controversial to me would suggest it was dismissed out of hand and reflects poorly on the awarding institution, so I think using the word "controversial" is absolutely appropriate. I agree with Adam that a pro-astrology hook is unacceptable, and I agree with others that highlighting the loss of the lawsuit on the main page would reflect poorly on Wikipedia. EdChem (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it would be fair to react to ALT3 by assuming it was an unaccredited university. One way around that is to specifically say it was Paris Descartes University. StAnselm (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT5: ". . . that in France, former television personality Élizabeth Teissier, publicly defended a thesis that astrology is oppressed?" That's interesting, true, and does not promote anything but facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think that's kind of hard to parse, though I could almost live with it. Alt 2 is far, far better though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I just don't find that very interesting, because it omits the crucial detail that the thesis was actually accepted. Gatoclass (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    "...that former French television personality Élizabeth Teissier, publicly defended a thesis that astrology is oppressed?" --Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So while the original hook has a certain "hey-nana-boo-boo" quality to it, that is not the same as saying "don't do a hook around the lawsuit at all" to me. It is pretty apparent that the nominator is not really feeling the astrology hooks but that's all that's bening suggested. If the hook is a factual, neutral statement about the lawsuit such as the Alt suggested below I don't see why it could not run on the main page?  MPJ-DK  00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The astrology thesis angle is far more interesting IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy with this, of course, but I don't think the nominator will be. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Adam Cuerden for comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE seems dubiously served by not mentioning it was controversial. It's not the worst suggestion made, but I think it's far more open to challenge than the one that was pulled, as that one at least went with weight of sources; this one actively ignores that there's basically no simple "statement-of-fact" coverage of this event. Whether savaging the university for awarding it or defending her thesis, all sources discuss the controversy. I think the only way to avoid it is to make the content more clear, which would make the controversial nature obvious without saying so. But I still think it should be included, lest it appear Wikipedia is promoting her views: Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Alt 8 suffers from the same problem of Alt 2 - we don't generally focus on controversy in BLP DYK hooks. StAnselm (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be the only source not to say something's controversial. When both sides of the issue accept it's controversial, Wikipedia can too. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
And for that reason I don't think this will make it at DYK. We are hamstrung by policy to some extent, but that's fair enough - it's certainly not an IAR scenario. StAnselm (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There is NO DYK policy banning the word "controversial". It would be... infuriating... if non-policy, non-guideline statements of opinion killed a DYK because I wasnt' willing to have it violate actual policies in what facts were selected. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
No, but there is a policy banning negative BLP hooks, and saying the doctorate (and not just the thesis) is controversial is indeed a negative hook. Also, "claimed" is also POV; a more neutral word would be "argued". StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Show me this policy. Because the nearest I can find to what you are saying is from Wikipedia:Did you know and says, "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals [...] should be avoided" - whioch does not in any way forbid talking about a persobn most notable for a controversy by discussing the controversy. Have we really been blocking this DYK because of a misreading of the DYK rules? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not a misreading - it's up to editorial consensus to work out how the "unduly" bit applies. The words in bold are your extrapolation - that's certainly not written in the policy. (Even if it was, you'd still have to demonstrate that Teissier is best known for this particular controversy.) StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, though I'm inclined to agree with you about the word "controversial", in my experience if one person objects on the grounds that the hook is too negative, there will be more complaints when the article is actually run, probably resulting in the hook either being altered or pulled. I think if you re-read ALT7, you might agree that while the word "controversially" isn't actually used, the wording strongly implies a controversial result that most readers with an interest in the topic will immediately recognize. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Much better. As a I argued above, though, "argued" is more neutral. (I don't think we need the year, either):

StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over a nearly-identical word. I can live with that. But may I suggest a small change for flow?Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Very happy with that - I'm glad we could find a mutually acceptable solution. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I was about to call for a new reviewer, but on looking at the article, discovered some refs that are only bare URLs, which is not allowed by DYK rules. FN 25 and 34 are bare URLs, and FN12 appears to be one but may just need reformatting. Once these have been expanded into proper refs, I'll be happy to make that call. I've also struck the various prior hooks now that ALT10A has been set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT10A hook. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, I don't think ALT10/10A work because the assertion that the thesis argues that astrology is oppressed by science is the characterization of a critic and not an objectively established fact. At this point, I think it would be best if we just went back to ALT7. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Looking at the abstract of her thesis [1] there's certainly some hints to that (scientism, an attack on the Enlightenment for harming astrology's place) so I'd imagine it's a fair assessment. Further, she quotes the article that quote is sourced to on her own website, without any additional commentary. @Gatoclass:: It does seem that if she's willing to quote the article, it's legitimate to use it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    I find that "abstract" pretty much incomprehensible, so I don't think it's useful as any sort of source, except for the fact perhaps that it clearly reads as some sort of defence of astrology. The fact that she quotes the NY Times article is almost certainly due to the fact that it places her thesis in the context of a broader debate about the meaning of sociology; I very much doubt she put the article there as an endorsement of the multiple disparaging comments about her thesis from her critics included therein. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So this review started June 27 and there has been no activity or comments since August 21, @Gatoclass, Adam Cuerden, and BlueMoonset: - Perhaps this is one of those hooks that we just let go? Just a suggestion to either move on or complete this. 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Every single hook I've suggested has been sourced to reliable sources. This was due to be published with the first hook months ago. I propose that it is published with either 1 or 10A, both of which are reliably sourced. No-one has ever said the information shouldn't be in the article; if it really was problematic, there'd be much bigger issues. The trouble is that this DYK nomination has been pilloried. Pulled up, in a manner that doesn't actually serve DYK at all, merely serving to humiliate the person writing for Wikipedia. End this farce: publish the fucking hook. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was very disappointed 10A was rejected - I thought we'd worked hard to find a consensus hook, and that Adam graciously conceded a lot of ground. StAnselm (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That's really what gets me: It's sourced to a reliable source, summarising an unpublished and highly controversial thesis. No sources exist to counter the summary, and the person in question directly quotes it on her website. If even that gets rejected, it feels like this whole thing never had the goal of finding a good hook; it was just a pillory. And then there's things like Alt 1, which I was being actively yelled at for not accepting, which use exactly the same source as Alt 10A, but moved claims explicitly credited to her out of their balanced context, thus promoting astrology - but that's not a problem, it's only a problem if anything the slightest bit negative comes across in our discussion of a person most notable for a major controversy on which she was unambiguously on the pseudoscientific side. I leapt through hoops to try and find something that at least makes clear she's not on the side of science, without taking a stance on that, simply reporting what the thrust of her argument was, so it was clear that she's promoting fringe theories and attacing mainstream science - which is kind of required by the WP:NPOV policy. And if that's going to be rejected, DYK needs to change itðs policies.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Putting aside the issue of use of sources, I do not understand how you consider ALT1 as being "pro-astrology" when all it does is state a couple of the subject's claims. By analogy, if I submitted a hook saying "Did you know that North Korea claims to have won the World Cup?", does that make it a "pro-North Korea" hook? Of course not, it is just stating a claim, and you can click the link for all the discussion and debunking which doesn't fit within the 200-character limit of DYK. If someone looks at that ALT1 on the front page and says "oh, so that lady predicted Black Monday? Gee she's clever" and carries on with their life without reading further, then they won't even know she's an astrologer. So I can't see how the act of merely stating her claims is automatically seen as promoting those claims, let alone promoting astrology in general. On the other hand, if the reader does click the link, then they get the full story.
      • As for ALT10A, if the problem is that the assertion is a "characterization of a critic", then why not make the hook "...for a thesis characterised as arguing astrology was being oppressed by science?" AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Because no reliable source characterises it otherwise. This is basic WP:NPOV - you don't present undisputed summaries of material as beingin doubt unless they are.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
          • What about my point concerning ALT1? What is not neutral about simply stating she made the claim? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[E.C.]The source doesn't present it as a disputed characterization; it quotes the statement as fact; we have no source saying that she doesn't argue that astrology is being oppressed by science. Indeed apparently, on p. 767 of the thesis, she makes it explicit she feels astrology is being oppressed by "The militants of established science. [2] - but the problem is, the nine hundred page thesis isn't available in full outside of the university, so we have to use summaries. [3] similarly states she states sociology is being oppressed by science. Is there a single source saying otherwise, or is this yet more pillorying

As for her claims in Alt 1: The only thing not outright promotion of pseudoscience in that is the one word "claim" - which is very weak given the only source for the claim is very explicitly Teissier herself. It's promotional material that the independent sources cast doubt on. We can't choose the worst-sourced, most likely to be false information, quoted in the article and reliable sources only to give context, and make THAT our hook. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on June 30[edit]

AIDS in New York City

Created by Ortiz2028 (talk), Doctorxgc (talk), and Mozucat (talk). Nominated by Bluerasberry (talk) at 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC).

  • I'm sorry, but while this article shows a lot of enthusiasm, it still needs a lot of work before it meets DYK standards. Lots of it is about HIV/AIDS in general (not just in NYC) and the timeline, completely unsourced, says lots of things like "X resigned because he distrusted Y". And there have to be better hooks than the above. EEng 21:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternate hook:"...that a decade of LGBT community protest and activism preciptated the decline of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in New York City after 1994?"--Pharos (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Much better hook, but the article is still bloated with general HIV/AIDS material not really on topic. EEng 22:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a question of judgement, but much of the general American HIV/AIDS story, including the medical research aspect, does have a major NYC historical component. It's something that would benefit from a larger discussion and more eyes.--Pharos (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full DYK review needed, keeping in mind earlier comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The first sentence is literally "HIV/AIDS in New York City."? Whu??
  • I have no problems with the content and context of AIDS that is currently in the article it is tied to NY one way or the other and helps tell the full story of it, it gives context to the reader, so that is not excessive (not sure if this has been edited after the original comments, but current version looks okay to me)
  • There is a "Citation Needed" tag, has to be addressed
  • Obviously long enough
  • Sources - there are several paragraphs without sources in the article. Needs to be addressed. Since you chose to go with a timeline, bullet list layout I am afraid each bullet point needs a source too.
  • Hooks - main and ALT2 come off as a bit dull or generic (not sure what an "LGBT response" is) and while Alt1 is better it still needs to be worked on - "Early police"
  • QPQ done
  • Timing is okay on this.
  • Generally well written other than the lead issue I found.
  • Copyvio check - The tool pinged on various similarities. I went over all of them and found most of the similarities were on names or generic terms such as " leading cause of death" etc. I don't think that's a problem. And some quotes naturally but overall it looks okay
  • Symbol question.svg So source work and some work on either Alt1 wording or a totally different hook is what is needed.  MPJ-DK  20:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, what do you think of the other hook, that I proposed above: "...that a decade of LGBT community protest and activism preciptated the decline of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in New York City after 1994?"Pharos (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pharos I had not seen that one, sorry. So looking at this the crux is "precipitated" and the LGBT community. I don't doubt protests and activism helped - but the only thing i can find in the article is "Improvements of both drug therapies and prevention education" unless I missed it? So I don't see the hook in the article? Can you help me find it perhaps it is worded in a way where I may have missed it?  MPJ-DK  20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I want to acknowledge the conversation happening right now but I need to bow out of this discussion. I am mostly away from wiki for the next week. I can re-engage then if the matter is ongoing. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ortiz2028, Doctorxgc, Mozucat, and Bluerasberry: SO no activity since August 27, if there is no work done on this in the next couple of days I would consider this nomination abandoned and I will close it.  MPJ-DK  02:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks MPJ-DK for your help and attention to this nomination. Work related to this project off-wiki has called our attention away from it, but we will return to this by the end of the week. Mozucat (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)










Articles created/expanded on July 11[edit]

Post-truth politics

Created/expanded by Smurrayinchester (talk). Self-nominated at 15:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 13:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 8855 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (16.0% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg This article does a very good job of being neutral and citing reliable sources on a topic which is potentially controversial. My only suggestion would be that the article focuses mostly on the British application of the term, and the American side could be expanded a bit more, but that is beyond the scope of DYK review and would not preclude a promotion. I have confirmed the bot analysis; spot checks reveal no close paraphrasing. I however think the hook could be better; the connection to 17th century pamphleteering just seems a bit out of left field, and I think there are more punchy hooks in the article, if you'd be willing to suggest one or two more. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Antony-22: Thanks! I've added a couple of alternative hooks (and I've also tried to add a bit more about US use of the term). Smurrayinchester 09:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
We have to be extra careful with this topic, as it is mainly applied to people and groups by their critics, and I would doubt that any of them would describe themselves as supporting "post-truth politics". Being that there are BLP implications, if a specific person (or, perhaps, group) is mentioned, there should be an in-hook attribution. Alternatively, the "Drivers" section contains material for hooks that would not mention a specific person or group.
One additional thing I noticed: the sentence "claims from the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign that the Democratic Party candidate selection was rigged towards Hillary Clinton" doesn't really fit as "post-truth" given the recent email leaks; even though the cited source supports it, it has become outdated by subsequent events. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: Pinging. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I was on holiday and missed the ping. I tried to make a blurb based on the "Drivers" section. However, I worry it may be too bland. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry also for the delay; I've been traveling or moving for most of the last month. The new hook is acceptable but you're right that it's kind of bland. Good hooks might be based on the first sentence of "Description" (repeating untrue talking points), or focusing on either of the low trust in major institutions or the social media filter bubble. I'd suggest hooks myself but then someone else would have to review them. Also, I have to check recent changes to the article for DYK compliance. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on July 19[edit]

Cavu

Bathers along the course of the Cavu
Bathers along the course of the Cavu
  • ... that the scenic Cavu became the first place of schistosomiasis re-emerging in Europe in 2014?

Created by Wuerzele (talk). Self-nominated at 03:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • ✓ The media File:Rivière-Cavo.jpg is free-use
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 89 characters
    • ✓ Wuerzele has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 1 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Agreeing with the bot. Long enough, new enough, has no issues with policy; hook is verified by an inline citation; the image is free and adequately illustrates the topic; QPQ checks out. I would change the hook to mention it being the first instance since 1965. SounderBruce 00:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: How about ALT1? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that in 2014, people who bathed in the Cavu became infected by schistosomiasis, the first time the parasite had been acquired in Europe since 1965?
Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good. SounderBruce 00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but am confused by the different figures cited for cases of people infected by the parasite. The lead said 120 as of 2014, but the text cites that figure as of 2016, with no source. (I changed the lead to "over 100".) Many figures are bandied about in the text. Could you add an inline cite to each one? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah, the lead is not required to carry sources. This article's body content is sourced 100%. (you've reviewed my articles before, and know the quality)
The source for the figure of 120 infections as of 2016 is in the body (ref 4). It is in the sentence following the flag that you placed; FYI this is common practice on WP: If one mentions several facts in a row/ in a paragraph from one source, not every sentence needs to be followed by the source. I removed the citation needed flag and placed a semicolon between the 2 sentences to show they are connected. If you insist, please check the source and place the reference after the sentence you questioned.Wuerzele (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wuerzele: thank you for cleaning up the figures and cites. I added an extra cite (ref 4) to that long sentence, because the facts on both sides of the semi-colon really didn't go together. I just have a question about the meaning of this sentence: As of 2016 transmission appears to be ongoing though, as a case acquired during the summer of 2015 has been reported. If the person acquired the disease in 2015, how does it qualify as a 2016 transmission? Yoninah (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thanks for trying to move this DYK forward ! I assume you felt the need to compromise (?) - I do not understand why the DYK hook needed changing to ALT1. I replied to SounderBruce to "go ahead" and change the hook according to his opinion. He didnt reply, didnt discuss or argue his point, didnt go ahead and change the hook, even though I reminded him, that I responded.

The ALT1 hook is longer and more difficult to read IMO, i.e. not so much in the spirit of DYK. I think the original hook was better and flowed better. The original hook also is completely correct; adding "since 1965" is unnecessary, because it is an "insider" detail, which is stated in the body for those who are interested in the history of the epidemiology of schisto in Europe (how may general readers care enough about the history of the epidemiology of anything?) Adding "since 1965" doesnt improve/change the correctness of the statement that the Cavu is the site of re-emerging schisto in Europe, a pretty profound story in public health. To add the detail "since 1965" makes the message neither stronger nor weaker. Hence, I would have tolerated it, if SounderBruce had felt strongly about it. Please all consider the original hook.Wuerzele (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with ALT0. 1) Schistosomiasis is a disease; it can't emerge in a river, but it can affect people who bathe in the river. 2) Once you start talking of "first place" and "reemerging", you have to start thinking of when previous outbreaks occurred and the time scale involved. 3) It makes it sound as if schisto then appeared in other parts of Europe in 2014. 4) Using the word "scenic" is peacocky. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It was my understanding that a reviewer shouldn't be proposing the alternate hooks, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. As Cwmhiraeth just explained, there were several problems with the initial hook that were fixed in the ALT1 (either eliminated or corrected). It's better to be specific and correct rather than too broad. SounderBruce 05:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator was pinged back on August 24; it's been nearly three weeks since then. Marking for closure, though if the nominator takes action on the outstanding issues before this closes, the closure can be deferred. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes Ive been offline for a long while. it is summer. sorry, BlueMoonset. what exactly do you guys want? I've honestly ignored Sounder Bruce's message from august 9. his posts clearly show he does not really want to help, he is just finding faults, and at the same time doesnt remedy them with constructive proposal (he knows he can propose an ALT), and he has no expertise in the area that would justify them.
    • Cwmhiraeth schistosomiasis the disease has been reemerging from that river as a source.
    • 2) "reemerging" is the term used in the lit- when previous outbreaks occurred and the time scale involved doesnt need to be explained in teh DYK nor the lede. 3) Re: makes it sound as if schisto appeared in other parts of Europe in 2014- no it doesnt - this is the term used. 4) Using the word "scenic" is peacocky. i do not agree- it is a fact, many canals eg are not scenic ! you may replace it with beautiful if you like, if you find the appropriate ref. Wuerzele (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed as Wuerzele and I have different views over this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, I agree about dropping the word scenic, and I think ALT1 is long-winded. I propose the following: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ALT2... that in 2014, the rivière de Cavu in Corsica hosted the recurrence of schistosomiasis in Europe?

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article was new enough when nominated and is long enough. ALT2 is acceptable, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for ALT2, User:Cas Liber. I dont know why you call a 15 word ALT1 "long winded" , compared to a 16 word ALT2 though.
Note, that the river is not the host, it's the snails in the river, so saying hosted is misleading. The river is the source, as i said previously okay, but not the host. Please ping for reply.Wuerzele (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Wuerzele: It was Casliber, not me, who proposed the hook. Let's try again:
yes Cwmhiraeth and I corrected to Casliber, as you saw. ALT3 supposes (implicated)- why not "the source of reemergence" - that says it straight and clear? Recurrence is for a shorter time interval in medical language like recurrent fever. I do not understand what is so difficult in accepting the established terminology of the sources?
This hook is so embattled- I have not seen anything like it, unless it was political, why? - this is natural sciences.
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT3 and ALT4 need reviewing; I've struck ALT2 due to the objection to "hosted", so the prior approval has been superseded. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Wuerzele: I am not purposefully trying to be awkward, but really the article does not have a sentence with an inline citation that states that people acquired the infection from bathing in the river. This is likely to be because the fact is not proven, and would be difficult to prove. In fact the cited statement that the snails tested did not harbour the parasite makes this less likely. It would be better to have a hook that was fully supported, for example starting "... that some people who bathed in the Cavu in 2014, ..." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth Incorrect, because, really, the article does have a sentence, the first in the section sanitary, with an inline citation that states that people acquired the infection from bathing in the river. so theres no need to hypothesize if acquisition is likely or not, or can be proven or not. and in fact the statement that the snails tested did not harbour the parasite does not make acquisition less likely and is fully compatible. It looks to me like you did not read the sources. Wuerzele (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is rather a waste of time because you have taken up one position and I have taken another and we are not likely to come to an agreement. I assume you are using #5 to support the hook (the DYK requirement is for an inline citation, so the third sentence in the "Sanitary issues" section has an inline citation but the first does not). This source states that the river contains snails; that the snails are capable of transmitting the infection; and that no snails tested contained the infective agent. It does not state that people bathing in the Cavu acquired the infection there. There is an association with the river but no causation has been proved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)







Russian gay propaganda law

Improved to Good Article status by ViperSnake151 (talk) and Jujutsuan (talk). Nominated by Jujutsuan (talk) at 20:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC).

I'll add that variant as alternates:
  • ALT0.1:... that Russia's federal law banning the distribution of homonormative materials among minors was favored by at least 90 percent of Russians surveyed in 2013?
  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article was Listed as a Good Article on 20:39, 19 July 2016
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 24263 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✗ This article has the following issues:
    • ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 63.9% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 168 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 172 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT2 is an appropriate length at 151 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT3 is an appropriate length at 155 characters
    • ✓ Jujutsuan has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 1 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion thread is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. The box is simply for organization.
Dead link fixed. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And the copyvio warning is a false alarm; the only things the bot suspects are title, attributed quotations, and some practically unavoidable phrases. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full human review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg - So looking at the Alt hook I would expect more than one local protest to be listed in the article, but it just covers one minior incident. To say "international and local" is factually correct but is also skewered and misrepresents the "90% in favor" portion, it is not balanced so I don't think that qualifies. Main hook - so factually incorrect, yes the article states "90%" but the source states "88%", cannot have a factually incorrect hook passed.  MPJ-DK  20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The actions in Kazan and Arkhangelsk were also "local" protests. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ViperSnake151 I did read that, but "one guy holding a sign" and "two guys picketing" did not register as significant enough to actually get into a hook in my mind. But technically' ALT1 is right. ALT0 still uses the wrong number.  MPJ-DK  19:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ViperSnake151 so no response for over a week. I have struck any alt that uses the figure "90%" since that is not supported by the article and no attempt to rectify it has been done.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg - I approve the ALT1 hook only.  MPJ-DK  02:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added to the article to support these suggestions. I think they are more interesting and "hooky" than a hook requiring a non-LGBT reader to be familiar with homonormativity. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to consider the newly proposed ALT hooks. (Previous hooks struck per discussion on WT:DYK.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg (ALT2) (105 characters) and (ALT2a) (151 characters) are both within the DYK length limit. Both are supported by citations, ALT2 citation quoting The Guardian, and ALT2a citation paraphrasing the less reliable blog, Gawker. ALT2 is shorter, perhaps "punchier", but ALT2a has the advantage of using an example that demonstrates how draconian the law is. Either way, interesting, well written article, good to go. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I pulled this from q4 as I couldn't adequately confirm the hook. The Gawker source provides some confirmation but isn't much of a source. I couldn't see anything in the Guardian source confirming it either. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Gatoclass, the Guardian source refers to the law's prohibition "on anyone disseminating information about homosexuality to under 18s". That is a direct quote from the source and is in the article. A parent coming out to a child is "disseminating information about homosexuality", so if the child is under 18, it is illegal under this law, supporting ALT2. What else do you feel is needed? ALT2a is not well supported by Gawker, but I couldn't find a better source online. However, the real basis for the hook is in the documentary itself where the issue was explored. I know you can't take my word, but it is in the documentary. If we can stick a reference to Episode 2 of the documentary, it would be a much stronger source, but I don't have a video file that can played or a time stamp to locate the relevant material. The lesbian couple actually discuss breaking the law every day simply by being out to their son. What do you suggest be done? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I've struck both ALT2 and ALT2a since the less comprehensive one was the one that was pulled from the queue, pending further discussion here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, your statement that a parent coming out to a child is "disseminating information about homosexuality" is original research unless you have a reliable source to back that up. Gawker is not a solid source, and neither in my opinion is a video where a gay couple claim that it's against the law. I think you would need something like, say, a case where somebody has actually been convicted of coming out to their children, or a legal expert to say as much - and even in the latter case, I think it would have to be attributed as opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Russia's infamous ban on "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations," which currently imposes fines and censure for any person or agency making pro-LGBT statements in any venue that could be accessible to minors – The Advocate
  • Russia's nationwide ban on so-called gay propaganda, signed into law by President Vladimir Putin last year, criminalizes any positive discussion of LGBT people, identities, or issues in forums that might be accessible to minors. In practice, the law has given police broad license to interpret almost any mention of being LGBT — whether uttered, printed, or signified by waving a rainbow flag — as just cause to arrest LGBT people. It's just one sign in an increasingly harsh crackdown on individual freedoms and basic rights for LGBT Russians. – The Advocate
  • The law effectively limits the rights of free expression and assembly for citizens who wish to publicly advocate for LGBT rights or express the opinion that homosexuality is normal ... On December 2, Roskomnadzor issued a list of clarifying criteria and examples of so-called LGBT propaganda, which includes materials that “directly or indirectly approve of people who are in nontraditional sexual relationships.” – US Department of State Report on Russia 2013 Human Rights Report
  • The "video where a gay couple claim that it's against the law", as you put it, might better be described as a documentary produced by the BBC. We aren't talking about YouTube here!
  • The US Department of State travel advisory for Russia states that "The law is vague as to what Russia considers propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations."
Does any of this help you to see my "original research" as supported? EdChem (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid not EdChem - if anything the opposite. The advocate appears to be a gay advocacy site and thus hardly a neutral commentator. The HR report talks about public advocacy, which is not the same thing. The fact that the documentary where the gay couple claims they can't legally come out to their own children was made by the BBC doesn't make the source - the couple - any more reliable. And the travel advisory states that the law is "vague", meaning that it isn't clear about exactly what is covered by it, which only suggests that it may or may not be illegal to come out to one's own children. The bottom line is that it hasn't been tested in a court of law yet. But I do note that a recent case involving a website attempting to help young people coming to terms with their sexuality resulted in a conviction, which was overturned on appeal, followed by another conviction which is apparently now on appeal. So it hasn't even been clearly established yet that it's illegal to run a public website dealing with the issue, let alone a private discussion between family members. So I still think the hook statement has not been established as factual. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I see the problem, Gatoclass. I've been concerned about establishing that it is the couple's view, and I see you are concerned about whether a prosecution would be upheld in a court of law. I saw the hook I proposed as going to the view of the couple, which I think is both reasonably and reliably established by the documentary, and a reasonable interpretation of the law. Looking at it as an assertion of unarguable fact, it is flawed. Perhaps an alternate version like:
I have been re-watching the second part of the documentary on youtube here - it is the section from 25 to 26 minutes. I plan to add this to the article in a cite AV template with a time stamp and the relevant quotations to support the Gawker reference. I don't think I can link to the youtube video in a reference as I suspect it is a copyvio. I think we can definitely state as a fact in a hook that this is theit opinion / belief / fears as discussed in the documentary without asserting that a court would find them guilty. I wrote "belief / fear" in ALT2b as you might see one as more appropriate and either are reasonable, I think. I changed son to daughter as the other refs have an error: each of the couple has a child, a son (Daniel) aged 20 and a daughter (Christina) aged 16 and it is Christina being a minor (along with her minor friends) that is the issue. Refs put the son as 16 and I followed them because I had forgotten this detail until I re-watched the documentary. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: Gatoclass, I'm sorry that I did not consider your perspective and concerns sufficiently to recognise that we have been talking at different issues - mine whether the views / fears of the law are reasonable and reliably sourced, yours whether the sources establish the legal position as a matter of fact. That's why I consider the documentary being from the BBC (reputable, etc) and the concerns that the vague law is open to this interpretation is a reasonable basis for fear. You are quite right that none of what I posted establishes a legal certainty about what a case might conclude - hence my suggesting re-casting the hook on the beliefs / fears of those as expressed in the documentary. I would like to note, though, FYI, that The Advocate is reliable and reputable bimonthly news magazine with proper editorial standards and processes, though focused on LGBT issues. Some of its content is Op-Ed and needs to be treated as such, but this magazine is regularly used on WP as a reliable source. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I have added to the sourcing and content of the article, which I believe supports ALT2b (above) and I think and hope addresses your concerns. Any thoughts? Also, have I done enough with this DYK to be added for author credit? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not comfortable with this. The new quote has Stephen Fry stating that the law makes it illegal for parents to out to their minor children when that isn't actually established yet. It's basically Fry's opinion but being presented as if it were an established fact. I'm not even sure the quote supports the hook, because it isn't actually the parents expressing that concern, it's Stephen Fry expressing it for them. Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 24[edit]

Flags of country subdivisions (Oceania)

  • ... that in French Polynesia, the right to fly an island's flag alongside the French flag was granted in 1985?
  • Comment: Created on July 24, but continuously expanded through today (August 3).

Created by NewYorkActuary (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Not sure what is being nominated for DYK here. The link is to a section in an article which has been around a lot longer then 24 July. The article is just a list of images of flags with no real prose content. Not eligible for DYK - should a different article be linked? Bcp67 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Bcp67 My apologies for the error. I meant to link to the recently spun-out article (the link in the hook has now been corrected). It, too, is a gallery-type article, but has more prose in it than did the original article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks NewYorkActuary - I thought there had to be a mistake as the original linked article was so obviously ineligble but I couldn't work out what it should be! Have struck through my first comment now. Bcp67 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg: New, long enough, but does not cite inline sources. I see that the article is sourced to the CIA World Factbook but it would be beneficial to include a direct link to each relevant page of the factbook so readers can easily access the primary source. The hook is nice and sourced. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Axem Titanium Thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding sourcing, every entry contains a link to the article for the country in question, as well as any spin-out articles that address the administrative subdivisions of the country. Although I am aware that one cannot use Wikipedia as a source, I assume that one can rely on the sourcing that exists in any "main articles" that are being cited. But when I checked those articles today, I found (to my chagrin) that a goodly number of them do not source the relevant information. And so I agree that something more is needed here. But I'm not sure that 31 references, each going to a separate sub-page of the same web site, is the best way to go. Instead, I've modified the introduction's mention of the Factbook so as to direct the reader to the article's External Links section. There, I've added three links. Two of them go to the Factbook's web site -- one of the targets has a drop-down box that brings the reader just one click away from the country of interest; the other link goes to a single listing of the administrative subdivisions of every country in the world (thus requiring only that the reader scroll down to the country of interest). The third link is to the ISO site, which also brings the reader one search-box away from the country of interest. I hope you find this an acceptable alternative. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not certain this would pass muster in a more rigorous review process than DYK. Even if it's 31 references to the same website, it's to the readers' benefit to have very quick access to the relevant webpage. I'm going to Symbol voting keep.svg with the hope that you get around to individual citations eventually. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There are two major issues with this nomination. The first is that the bold link does not go to the article itself, but rather to a subsection of it. That's not allowed at DYK; it has to be the main article. And the other is that the individual sections are not referenced. You can always appeal this on the DYK talk page, but I've never seen a list article that had no individual source citations except for in only one paragraph in the article body, and that seems to run afoul of WP:DYKSG#D2: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding the linking to a section, I have no strong feelings about making it a link to the article itself. But I note that most of the article has nothing to do with French Polynesia, so readers looking to learn more about the hook will find themselves having to search for the appropriate section if they are linked to the main article. But I'll be happy to change the link if necessary.
The need for in-line citations is more troublesome. Since my last posting, I've added two more external links to the article, with the new ones going to on-line flag sites. One of these links is to a listing of the site's entries for all countries in the world, meaning that verification is achieved simply by scrolling down to the country of interest and then clicking on a link. Thus, verification is easily achieved for both the identification of country subdivisions (via the links that had been added earlier) and the flags themselves (via the more recently-added links). I am aware that the unique history of Did You Know has led to citation rules that are different than the ones found in other parts of Wikipedia. But it appears that these rules were not crafted with this type of article in mind. I note that it would be possible to bring two of the external links (the single-page listing of subdivisions and the all-countries listing of flag entries) into the article as named references. Then, each paragraph could be linked to one or the other of these two named references (or both). Doing so would bring the article into formal compliance with the DYK citation rules. But it would also introduce the unsightly use of two references that are each being cited dozens of times. And it would do so without adding anything to the ease with which the information can be verified.
The information in the article is well-sourced, and that sourcing is achieved by links to sites that are themselves designed to facilitate the easy location of material. I see nothing to be gained by peppering the article with dozens of footnote markers that point to two multiply-used named references. Perhaps this is a rare situation for which formal compliance with the rules does not improve the article.
Thanks again for looking at this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook has distinct urls for each of the listed countries like [4] and [5] so there's no need to cite the same url dozens of times. The same is true for the ISO Online Browsing Platform. Providing in-line direct links to citations is a convenience on the one hand, and critical for accessibility to readers with less computer literacy. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)








The Triggering

Milo Yiannopoulos, one of the three speakers at The Triggering.
Milo Yiannopoulos, one of the three speakers at The Triggering.

Created by Jujutsuan (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 7259 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 49.7% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed the suspected copyvios; they are all quotations from sources. juju (hajime! | waza) 22:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg All checks out for 1st hook, which I prefer, except the next point. I can confirm the "copyvios" are ok, except for "expected,[2][4] but not to the degree of intensity that actually occurred." In the source "expected" is a quote, the rest apparently the reporter's words. This needs tidying somehow. Article reads nicely. Frankly the subject is of questionable notability, as a student storm in a teacup, but would certainly survive AFD on the media coverage. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I've made this a quotation. Good to go? juju (hajime! | waza) 19:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
No, because you make it sound like a quote by Paapas, not the journalist. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
How about now? juju (hajime! | waza) 15:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod, any thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Yes, i think that fudges it ok. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


Symbol possible vote.svg Main hook is awkward → speakers, free speech, spoke all in one sentence. Could be worded better. ALT1 is no longer valid, as it was edited out of the article.
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Inbetween the bot review and now, the article has had substantive rewrites by many editors. I think it might be a good idea to have a different reviewer recheck this article. It should also be checked for stability, as it was still being editing as of August 26. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg It would be helpful if the article started by giving details of the event, facts currently only mentioned but not cited in the lead, rather than just jump straight in to the protests and interruptions. The main hook mentions booing but the article does not so ALT0 will not do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on July 25[edit]

Kalanemi (Ramayana)

  • Reviewed: Scaly-foot gastropod
  • Comment: the article was split from Kalanemi which is also a new article falling in 7-days new criteria limit.

Created by Dharmadhyaksha (talk). Self-nominated at 06:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment – Given that the character is not a part of the original epic and is not notable outside the interpolated versions, do you think it's necessary to have a separate article? —Vensatry (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please refer discussion at Talk:Kalanemi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. —Vensatry (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In Prep 5, DYK Kalanemi, which was created on July 19, 2016, and nominated 21 July 2016 (UTC). The bot review was done that same day, but the human review was done August 9 - 24 by multiple editors.
  • DYK Kalanemi (Ramayana) was spun off verbatim from the other one on July 25, 2016, and with a few smaller edits, but it is mostly text forked from the original article. See Talk:Kalanemi. It has not had a full review.

@Dharmadhyaksha: What that means, is that the bot review done July 21, is now invalid to some degree. The DYK rules state may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. and also The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles The way I see the rules, the second article is not eligible for DYK.

Feedback from the community? — Maile (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see much duplicated text, though I didn't look that closely. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not copy and paste. More cut and paste. The editor cut it from the first nominated article, and created a new article by pasting the cut text to it. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Was the count considered for the original article or in place when the review was approved? Seems like if the review was done starting August 9 then this was already moved? If that's correct then I have less of a problem with it, especially since the split off was done less than 7 days after article creation and was done after a talk page discussion, not just for the heck of it.  MPJ-DK  16:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Text which is less than seven days old isn't counted if duplicated in another article. The other article should simply have a minimum of 1500 bytes of new text. See supplementary rule A5. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that the nominator Dharmadhyaksha was acting properly and documenting everything about it. The original nomination, now on the main page, is not in question. But what happened, is that the bot clocked it in as 7684 characters, and it is currently at 4806 characters. So, the original article maintains eligibility. 2953 characters of the other article was pasted into the new article after the bot checked the character count. The current new article is 3539 characters. I guess the question is whether or not the new article should be a 5X expansion, or if we accept the cut and paste as a newly created article. When, in fact, most of it was from the original character count of the first article. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:DYKSG#A5: New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count. Since the original article is plenty long enough without the moved material (it was fully reviewed on August 9, after the move had occurred), as is this one, and the split occurred six days after the original article was created, then I would expect them both to be eligible as new articles. Is there some reason why this rule would not apply? People looking at Kalanemi, the original article which is at this moment on the main page, will not see any of the moved Kalanemi (Ramayana) material. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A manual count of the size should be done where the repeated text should be removed. If that's not 1500 it should not be passed at the moment, if the count is under 500 characters of new then I say it should be closed completely IMO. But as someone who had to put the work in to ensure "repeated text" is only counted in 1 DYK I fully agree this should not just pass muster. Even if it would qualify timing wise the fact that it was already counted towards another DYK is why we have to look at only the new text.  MPJ-DK  16:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC) (incorrect assumption)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. Everything seems to be fine with this as a fork from the other article. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. I've learnt something, since I always thought that text copied from another article counted as already existing text that had to be expanded upon x5. Good to go.--Launchballer 08:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this because while the hook and part of the article states that the story is in the Ramayana, another part of the article states that the story is not in the Ramayana but some other text. The contradiction needs to be resolved before this can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
ALT proposed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, has the contradiction been resolved? If it has, I'll call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in getting back to this, but I've had a lot of distractions lately. I can't look at this again right now, but I will try to come back to it sometime in the next week if nobody else has commented by then. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for inactivity of old reviewers for this 2 month old nomination! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on August 1[edit]

Yokneam Moshava

  • Comment: I've chosen this fact, because it has an English source while for the rest of the article I only found Hebrew sources.

5x expanded by Bolter21 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Bolter21: New enough, long enough, article seems neutral to me. You need a few things first, though: QPQ is required, and there's no citation on the matching sentence in the article ("The ma'abara turned into a town..."). I'm also going to suggest an ALT1 that flows a bit better: Raymie (t • c) 22:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I like that ALT and I made a small research. So the local council existed since 1950 at the earliest (accroding to the only English source) and at some point, the local council, including both places, had 4,000 residents (which brought me to the conclusion it turned into a town, which apparently was not supported by sources, although probably happened) and in 1967 the moshava left the local council. So if I remove the "turned into a town", it would make sense.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
My issue was simply that there's not an inline citation in that sentence, that's all. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I"ve now recieved a message on my talkpage that there are issues in the nomination.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Having considered reviewing this article, I feel this nomination could really do with your expertise (if I understand your area of expertise correctly). It could also do with some copyediting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, @Bolter21:, I did a preliminary edit. But I'm finding the grammar hard to understand, and more copyediting is needed. Why are you calling it "lands"? In English we call a tract "land".
  • The Yokneam Website and the Haaretz article both say the moshava was founded in 1935. This fact should appear clearly in the lead.
  • The section "Acquiring the lands" goes around in circles. If the Lebanese families owned the land, what were the Arab villages doing there? Maybe you should write the facts in chronological order so the reader can follow the history. The same goes for the section "Early years". Please break this section into smaller paragraphs and talk about each topic (Jews arriving, problems with authorities, Beduin sharecroppers refusing to leave) separately and in logical order.
  • In the section "After the establishment of Israel", several points are unclear. Levinger was the head of what, the local council or the ma'abara? It's unclear what was split into what in the third sentence.
  • I understand this is a start-class article, and not as developed as the Yokneam article. But I think you should describe the resident profile – is it an all-Jewish settlement, or do Arabs also live there?
  • IMO neither hook is hooky or interesting to foreign readers. You could inject a little more juice into it this way:
  • ALT2: ... that in 2013 the mayor of Yokneam Illit called for the rural village of Yokneam Moshava to be annexed to his city because it was blocking the city's ability to expand? Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In Hebrew we refer to the land in the plural form adamot when refering to land as a property and not just "land", anyway I"ll remember now that when I translate "lands" to English I"ll remove the s.
  • The date of establishment is located in the first line of the "first years" section as well as in the infobox. In localities of Israel we usually don't write the date of establishment in the lead. Are you sure it is necessary?
  • The Lebanese families lived in Lebanon, but they owned the lands as well as many other lands in Palestine. Inside those lands there were usually sharecroppers who paid taxes to the land owners. I"ll split the sections now or tommorow.
  • Levinger was originally the head of the moshava. After the establishment of Israel the ma'abara was created and a local council (which is a status given only by the ministry of interior) was created. The local council included both the mosava and the ma'abara (probably so the moshava will take care of the ma'abara) and Levinger who was already the unofficial head of the moshava was appointed as head of the new local council. (If it helps understand, a local council sometimes cover several localities and in this matter, the moshava and ma'abara acted like two neighborhoods under a single municipality whose head was Levinger). I couldn't phrase the split well, there was the local council which included the moshava and ma'abara and in 1967 the ma'abara became a single municipality and the moshava joined another municipality (Megiddo Regional Council) Maybe you can phrase it better?
  • Well, in Israel there are "Jewish localities" and "Arab localities" while there are around 10 cities with mixed populations and there are no small mixed villages (with the exception of Neve Shalom). My point is that all of the Jewish localities articles do not spesify that all of the residents are Jewish because there are almost no mixed localities in Israel.
  • I like that hook, no problem with it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bolter21: thank you for the work you did on the article. It reads much better now. Could you just add at least one citation to the first paragraph under "Acquiring the land" per Rule D2? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you. Since I wrote ALT2, calling on another reviewer to review it. @Raymie:? Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is a five-fold expansion; it is long enough and was new enough when nominated. ALT2 is interesting and acceptable and has an inline citation. The article is neutral, and the Hebrew sources prevent me from considering whether there are any copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)



Cash Trapped, The Alphabet Game

  • ALT1:... that the opening episode of Cash Trapped contained an editing mistake which revealed its result at the start of the show?
  • Reviewed: IWRG Guerra de Campeones
  • Comment: The Alphabet Game does not currently exist, because Cash Trapped has a two-week run and then Alphabetical has a two-week run. I may start the article in the meantime, most likely in userspace, but there isn't enough content to warrant a 1,500 character article for it yet and if I waited two weeks to create the nomination, it'd fall foul of the five-day limit. In addition, Mogomaniac edited the article four minutes after I hit 'save', so it's likely that the creation of that article couldn't have waited.

Created by Launchballer (talk) and Mogomaniac (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 13:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC).

Review of The Alphabet Game
Review of Cash Trapped
General comments

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I cannot find the rational between this joint hook. Each of the two articles might qualify for DYK in their own right, but why are they being combined in a joint nomination? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I had intended that Alphabetical be a section in The Alphabet Game after reading that Alphabetical was modeled after Pasapalabra which (apparently) is based on The Alphabet Game. However, when I did that, the Alphabetical stuff was waltzed over to a separate article almost immediately. I'll clear up this mess a bit later on.--Launchballer 05:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, here's what's happening. Alphabetical (game show) is a split from The Alphabet Game, so should still count.
  • ALT0 fails the "interesting" requirement, IMO. Who cares whose idea it was? EEng 18:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see the above hook. I maintain Cash Trapped being devised by the presenter of the show it was a summer replacement for is interesting, but there's a replacement hook above.--Launchballer 10:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg You will need to do a bit more work before this gets anywhere. For example "The Alphabet Game" is not mentioned in either article, and the fact that "Alphabetical" was a summer replacement for "The Chase" is not mentioned, nor in fact is this mentioned for "Cash Trapped" either. You could consider making this a single article nomination for "Cash Trapped", which is a much better/more complete article than the other. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Better?--Launchballer 11:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg These two articles seem to qualify for DYK on the grounds of length and newness. The articles are neutral and do not seem to have copyright issues. ALT1 only referred to one article and I have struck it. Despite EEng's comments, I find the original hook fairly interesting, and prefer it to ALT2 which is technically correct but clunky. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Eh, what do you want to do about The Alphabet Game? I was hoping to nominate that as well.--Launchballer 14:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Launchballer, I have struck the original hook, which clearly violates WP:DYKSG#C9: No parentheses in the hook unless absolutely unavoidable. (The (pictured) for the lead hook is the sole exception to this rule.) C9 makes sense, too: if you're doing what's effectively an aside, the hook becomes less compelling. The hooks also failed to italicize the names of the various television shows, so it's surprising they were approved without them being fixed. (I just italicized five show names in the surviving ALT2, though it needs revising if it is to be used—I agree with Cwmhiraeth that it is clunky.) Unfortunately, as is true of most of Launchballer's game articles, the sourcing for the bulk of the article is primary, and seems to involve Launchballer viewing videos and transcribing his interpretation of the format: that's always struck me as original research absent a secondary source describing the game. I frankly found myself at sea at a number of points during the Alphabetical Format paragraph. The Cash Trapped Format section has two unsourced paragraphs; unlike Alphabetical, it does have a trio of reviews that might serve as secondary sources for format details. The Alphabet Game similarly uses almost entirely primary sources except for the Spanish ones having to do with Pasapalabra, but I don't believe those are represented accurately: so far as I can tell, based on Google Translate, Pasapalabra was a pre-existing game show that was retooled based on The Alphabet Game back in 2007, and while there was a judgment in ITV's favor in the suit, Telecinco was appealing the ruling as of 2014, so to say ITV successfully sued for 17 million euros is premature based on the supplied sources. More important, if I'm reading this correctly, ITV is suing for unpaid licensing fees, not plagiarism, and Alphabetical is based on The Alphabet Game but incorporating Pasapalabra's "famous finale". At the moment, this nomination is far from ready for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Well let's see, I was trying to move this nomination on because it had been languishing too long. I know nothing about gameshows and am admonished by BlueMoonset for getting things wrong. I wasn't aware this was a three article nomination and I did not review the Alphabet Game. There are other nominations where it is clear what articles are included and where people have done the correct number of QPQs and my enthusiasm for continuing this review is low. However, if you write a decent new hook, do two more QPQs and attend to the things Bluemoonset mentions, we might get there in the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Absent a reliable secondary source - UKGameshows.com tends to contain the details (in this case for Cash Trapped and Alphabetical, but not The Alphabet Game), but just falls short of being a reliable source. I've done most of it but I'm falling asleep here - try the following hook, but anything else can wait until the morning.
ALT3: ... that the two summer replacements for The Chase were Cash Trapped and Alphabetical, the latter taking its end game from a retooling of The Alphabet Game
Launchballer, please let us know when you've finished up with all that still needs doing. However, I don't find the ALT3 hook very interesting: two shows being summer replacements for a third. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on August 2[edit]

Pringles Unsung

  • ... that the music competition Pringles Unsung was described as being "liable to kill the most credible career"?
  • Reviewed: Willie Carlin
  • Comment: By my count the prose portion of this article just squeaks in at 1538 characters. I'll leave it to the discretion of the reviewer as to whether this is long enough for DYK. Also open to any other, better hooks.

Moved to mainspace by A Thousand Doors (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and just long enough. The hook fact is cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this from Prep 3 as concerns have been raised about the article's completeness and notability, here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have added the information about the winner (thanks for that) and specified that the competition was only ran once. As for questions regarding comprehensiveness and length, I said right at the top of this page that I recognise that this is a short article that only just meets the required DYK length – anything else smacks of WP:TOOLITTLE to me. I've never claimed that it's comprehensive, but, since that isn't one of the DYK criteria, I don't see why that's an issue. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on August 5[edit]

David Suhor

David Suhor speaks before the Pensacola City Council about Invocations Feb 13, 2014
David Suhor speaks before the Pensacola City Council about Invocations Feb 13, 2014
  • ... that after singing a Satanic prayer to the Pensacola City Council, David Suhor (pictured) condemned the council for giving religion such a prominent role in its proceedings?
  • Source (for singing the Satanic prayer):"On July 14, 2016 Suhor (now recognized as the co-founder of the local chapter of the Satanic Temple) sang a Satanic invocation before the City Council.[1]"
  • Source (for comments afterwards): "The Washington Times reported that during the public comments, Suhor criticized the Council for making non-Christians feel like they are not represented by the local government, stating that "prayer doesn’t properly belong in politics."[1] The Christian Post reported that Suhor stated during the comments to quit pandering for votes, adopt some rules and move to a moment of silence [instead of prayer]."[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Blake, Andrew (July 15, 2016). "Satanic prayer opens Pensacola city council meeting; police forced to remove protesters". The Washington Times. Retrieved 30 July 2016. 
  2. ^ Smith, Samuel. "Hundreds of Christians Recite Lord's Prayer at Florida City Council Meeting to Combat Satanic Invocation". The Christian Press. Retrieved 30 July 2016. 

Created by Sgerbic (talk). Nominated by Dustinlull (talk) at 01:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Sgerbic Dustinlull This article is long enough (17091 characters), new enough (moved from sandbox on Aug 5, nominated Aug 6), and written neutrally. There are two lengthy block quotes which elevated the copyvio score. The text without the block quotes appears to contain no copy vio issues. The quotes, arguably, support the page by giving direct examples to the alternate (non-Christian) prayers cited as invocations at the town council meetings (as Sgerbic mentions on the talk page). They are pertinent to the issue being discussed on the page. Not sure if these should be summarized instead of directly quoted (is there a cut-off length for block quotes?), but could support leaving them in. Sources appear reliable. Images are CC by 3.0. The hook is short enough and interesting. It accurately summarizes the Pensacola event, but I was not able to find an appropriate inline citation. Please provide an inline citation for the existing hook or additional hooks with inline citations for review. SojoQ (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you SojoQ, looking into it now.Sgerbic (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I have filled in the sources and references above, copied directly from the article. @SojoQ: does this address your concerns? Gronk Oz (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg@Gronk Oz: I believe the article to be well sourced. It is my understanding the hook fact(s) must be stated in the article (which they are) and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source (which is where my question lies). I interpret this to mean the source needs to be cited directly after the specific sentence in which the information appears on the page. Mention of the Satanic prayer doesn't have an inline source if my interpretation is correct. The sourcing comes two or three sentences later. If I am incorrect, I will gladly defer to others who have more experience with hooks than I. SojoQ (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@SojoQ: You are quite correct: the DYK guidelines are clear that "each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact." So I have rearranged things a bit in the article to satisfy this - please check if you think it is okay now. Gronk Oz (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg @Gronk Oz: My apologies for not getting right back to you. I was away from my computer a few days. Thank you for making these changes. That addresses my concerns. Good to go. SojoQ (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on August 10[edit]

List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence

  • ALT1: ... that swimmer Yuliya Yefimova was the only Russian athlete with a prior doping offence allowed to compete at the 2016 Summer Olympics?
  • Comment: The first blurb is my preferred one but it is not covered by a single citation but by all the individually cited entries in the list (and simple maths). This is my first DKY nomination.

Created by KTC (talk) and Thryduulf (talk). Nominated by Thryduulf (talk) at 09:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment; I would not use a specific number. The attached list is grossly incomplete. As I am going through Olympic competitors bios there are at least a dozen I have noticed that are not included in this list. I have far bigger fish to fry during the Olympics so I can't spend the time to update this list in each instance, particularly when BLP sourcing is required. But the number are definitely wrong by being too low. Trackinfo (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Obviously, if approved, this would be best run before the end of the Olympics. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@KTC and Thryduulf: This nomination is not going to get anywhere until the comment above has received attention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: The article has been updated since the comment was made, but I took it mainly as a comment about the hook. I don't know how it can be addressed any more than that? Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Well, I'm not sure how lists that might be incomplete are treated in this respect. I think we need a new hook that does not state 95 as a precise figure, and if you would like to suggest one, I will review the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth and Thryduulf: I've struck the original blurb suggestion with the precise figure as it stands. If people are happy, one can go back to it with "at least" but I'll leave that to others here. There was already a ALT1 (see above), obviously one can think about another alternative if it is not suitable. -- KTC (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I had not noticed ALT1. My apologies, I will review it now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
How about
  • ALT2: ... that swimmer Yuliya Yefimova was allowed to compete at the 2016 Summer Olympics despite a blanket ban on Russian athletes with a prior doping offence? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think there needs to be some note of context that Yefimova is Russian, without knowing that it seems very odd to single her out. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
This hook seems to me to fall within the "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals" rule. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Well you might call the article negative, but I wouldn't say the ALT2 hook was. I will leave it to someone else to further review this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
ALT2 certainly isn't focused on a negative aspect of a living individual, and I don't think ALT1 is either. As for the article, I don't think it is as it includes only those athletes who competed at the olympics, which I think is a very positive thing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on August 11[edit]

Roman Tmetuchl

  • Reviewed: Austin Petersen
  • Comment: I'm not sure if the listed QPQ counts because the article creator rejected my review because s/he counted me as a "major contributor" for an edit that I made which was quickly reverted (I reviewed the article in its reverted). I can get another QPQ if needed.

5x expanded by FallingGravity (talk). Self-nominated at 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook about Roman Tmetuchl is sourced to a book published by the Roman Tmetuchl Family Trust. Since this is an incredible (possibly accurate, but still incredible) claim, we'll need a source that better meets NPOV and RS standards. Will hold on rest of review pending that. Also, as per recently pulled hooks, hookishness is subsumed by our need for accuracy so I'd recommend rewording this "a man named Hitler". (Not my personal preference but that seems to be the direction the Bully Brigade is charging this week.) LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I had a look, thinking that Hitler might just about have arranged such a thing, but couldn't possibly have done it himself - turns out it was some local man called Hitler. Hmmm... Edwardx (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Guampedia notes the author's scholarly credentials calls the book "the first research-based biography of a Pacific island leader". As for finding another source, I found this Mother Jones article which mentions one Hitler Demei who was "a felon convicted on several assault-with-a-deadly-weapon charges" (a description which fits the attempted assassin). However, the article investigates the 1985 assassination of Haruo Remeliik and doesn't mention the attempted 1970 assassination. FallingGravity 02:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with Guampedia. Is it RS? LavaBaron (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe so. Per its description page: "Content for the website was developed by a slew of professional writers, researchers, cultural specialists and other scholars who provided expertise for putting together information that could be accessed easily by a general audience." Other journals and books use it as a source. FallingGravity 06:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 reads as if Hitler tried the assassination after Hitler himself became a congressional senator. According to the article, Tmetuchl wasn't sworn in as a senator for several months (election in 1970; took office in late January 1971); at the time of the attempted killing he had won the popular vote for his senate seat a few days before, but was not yet a congressional senator. I've struck both hooks; I'm sure a less ambiguous and more accurate wording can be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that Hitler once attempted to assassinate Palauan politician Roman Tmetuchl?
  • ALT3: ... that a man named Hitler once attempted to assassinate Palauan politician Roman Tmetuchl?
    Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've reworked the hooks to just include the basic facts. ALT2 is meant to catch the unsuspecting reader off guard, and ALT3 is more straight-forward. I figure the hook promoter can decide which is more appropriate, though reviewers are welcome to add their opinions like previous reviewers. FallingGravity 22:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    Note: I have also listed this on the April Fool's DYK page for some of the more disorienting hooks. FallingGravity 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that Hitler tried to shoot a Roman in 1970? EEng 20:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on August 13[edit]

Ağın Bridge

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and barely long enough. Sources appear to be PDFs in Turkish, which I can't read. Which source indicates the budget for its construction? Source #4 indicates 33.5 million in Google Translate. Article needs a bit of a copyedit and grammar cleanup: Turkish construction companies (...) f Bager and HCG is missing something - where I've marked it here as (...). "Non-existing" generally refers to fake, not destroyed objects. I'll probably clean it up myself. The hook is almost too long and also needs grammar cleanup. It is cited inline to reliable sources, though. QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for your review and comment. I've removed ref #4 from the sentence, which caused confusion, and modified the budget cost figure. Ref #3 is accurate since the source is from the General Directorate of Highways (Turkey) (KGM), which was responsibke for the bridge's construction. I've fixed typo with (...), and reworded "non-existing" to "no more existing". The hook is with its length of 188 chars under the 200-chars limit. However, I'll welcome any alt suggestion. My apologize for grammar errors, and will be grateful for copyediting. CeeGee 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've proposed a somewhat cleaned up ALT hook, as well as done a grammar cleanup on the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Turkey's fourth longest bridge... you don't say! EEng 18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: Are you surprised? Yes, it certainly was the fourth longest bridge of the country as it was opened to the traffic. This fact also is sourced. It is not the case today, because two longer bridges were opened in 2016. This is for your information only. CeeGee 03:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Look, isn't there something more interesting to say than that it was briefly the fourth-longest bridge in Turkey? EEng 03:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I hope I misunderstood your comment before. Maybe an ALT as following: CeeGee 04:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Anything about a flood is at least a bit of an attention-getter. EEng 05:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Renewing call for a new reviewer to check the hooks, including what is interesting and what isn't. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia

Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Article is newly expanded, and the hook fact (the quote) has a direct citation. The end of the second paragraph of The figures subsection is presently uncited. Miyagawa (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
So it is, but this is not a problem for Dyk - see the rules. I have mislaid the ref for that one for now. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Point #4 of the criteria requires the article to conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability. The very first section of that policy is WP:UNSOURCED, and the very first line that reads "All content must be verifiable." Therefore, DYK requires all information to be cited. The minimum one citation per paragraph DYK guide would generally come at the very end of the paragraph and therefore cite the entire thing. Miyagawa (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
That last bit is manifestly not true. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The DYK rules requires one citation per paragraph. In order for this to meet with Wikipedia:Verifiability to have everything cited it would be placed at the end of the paragraph to cover the entire contents of the paragraph. Now we can continue to argue about this ad infinitum, or you could just place the cite for the end of the paragraph. If you don't have access to the reference right now, then that's fine - there's no deadline here to make the required changes. This can simply wait until you have access once more. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I can't remember where it was - & I've looked at a lot of sources. As you must be aware, your demand is pure instruction creep, & I don't like your suggestion that I falsify a reference. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no suggestion that you falsifed a reference. The only issue I have is that there is uncited information in the nominated article. My suggestion above that there's no deadline and you can take your time was just that - there's no need to rush. The nomination isn't going to go away because of some set timeframe to review it within. If it takes you a while to find the source once again, then that's fine. I didn't want you think that I was putting on pressure to do something quickly. As for scope creep - Wikipedia:Verifiability is certainly not scope creep. It's a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia. Miyagawa (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. The question mark denotation above does not provide a complete review, and the second paragraph in the "The figures" section of the article does indeed have an inline citation. Per the DYK supplementary guidelines #D2, "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph", so the article is presently actually meeting this requirement. #D2 does not state that the citation has to exist at the end of the paragraph. The citation also serves to verify content within the hook herein, although it is a primary source, published by the Ashmolean Museum at University of Oxford, which is exhibiting the painting. However, Oxford University is certainly a reliable source. North America1000 09:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to say that, although taken from the Ashmolean press release, I'm fairly sure the text is from the exhibition catalogue by Sonnabend, Martin and Whiteley, Jon, with Ruemelin, Christian (a part I can't read on google preview). Of these only Whiteley is an Ashmolean curator, eg Sonnabend works for the Frankfurt museum. Stuff by curators in large museums is secondary, and normally regarded as free from the COI that output from over-enthusiastic marketing departments, especially in smaller museums, may have. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine. Just be aware that should this go to prep in the current state, and then one of the gang that likes to jump up and down on reviewers for not doing their job properly drags it back to here and starts up a thread on the talk page admonishing us - I did my job properly. Let it be on the head of the next reviewer. Miyagawa (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that previous comment was over the top. Wasn't sure if the appropriate thing was to delete it or not, so I've struck it. Miyagawa (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)









Articles created/expanded on August 14[edit]

XHLUV-FM

  • ... that a 2014 attack on the radio station Calentana Mexiquense resulted in the death of the owner's 12-year-old son?

Moved to mainspace by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Leszek Jańczuk, "good to go" is not an adequate review. Please be sure to check yourself whether the article is adequately sourced and neutral, that the hook is properly sourced and neutral, that your own spotcheck confirms that there was no close paraphrasing (which a copyvio checker cannot do, even if it was sufficiently reliable), etc. As you've used the AGF check, you should also mention what aspects of the review assume good faith. Thank you for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well sourced, written neutrally, no copyvio. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to do a fully complete review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hook is short enough and formatted correctly, interesting, adequate QPQ. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg @Leszek Jańczuk: I appreciate you wanting to review this, but I think a new reviewer was what was requested. Raymie (t • c) 06:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Talbieh Camp

Created by Tucoxn (talk). Self-nominated at 19:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment The articles states, "mostly Bedouin", rather than "Palestinian". Edwardx (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that when Talbieh Refugee Camp first opened, most of its inhabitants were displaced persons, as opposed to refugees?
- tucoxn\talk 01:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Tucoxn, ALT1 does seem to coincide better with the article facts. Edwardx (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook has been settled on; striking original hook due to issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Meets newness, length, and neutrality requirements. However, there are numerous sourcing problems. The UNRWA source in footnote 1 is a dead link. I found the hook information in the Jewish Virtual Library source, and used that as the cite in the article, but the UNRWA source is cited in other places, so that needs to be taken care of. Also, I don't understand how the Google pushpin map in footnote 3 verifies this sentence: Because of their status as displaced persons, many of the camp's residents have documentation allowing them to work legally in Jordan. The wordpress source in footnote 4 is a non-reliable source and should be deleted. Finally, this sentence – As of 2013, Talbieh Camp was the only Palestinian refugee camp where young men outperformed young women in terms of completing post-secondary education. – is sourced to a 2011 publication, which doesn't mention it at all. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for raising these issues. UNRWA recently changed the way their web addresses work, so that's fixed. I need to address the other things you raised and will comment again when those changes are complete. I appreciate your constructive comments. - tucoxn\talk 16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Ellen Zitek

  • ... that actress Georgina Bouzova feared that people would spit at her because of the behaviour of her on-screen counterpart Ellen Zitek?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Polly Paaaina
  • Comment: Hook source requires a Highbeam account - exact quote if it need be a AGF: "I thought I would have people spitting at me in the streets because Ellen can be such a scheming, nasty character, but I haven't had anything like that." - [6]

Created by Raintheone (talk). Self-nominated at 15:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Thank you for the work on this interesting article. The article is new enough and long enough, and there are no detected copyright violations. The hook is interesting, short enough, and sourced. I would only suggest a minor modification. ALT1: "... that actress Georgina Bouzova feared that people would spit at her because of the behaviour of her character Ellen Zitek?" To me, an on-screen counterpart is a co-star, not a character. If this tweak is okay, I think we should be good to go. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed for the proposed ALT1 above. North America1000 10:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Northamerica1000:It is almost the same hook? The editor changed "on-screen counterpart" to "character" for clarity.Rain the 1 20:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As long as the slash mark sign is there atop, it's typically unlikely that a reviewer will promote this. Hence the review needed notice above. I'm just trying to help things along. North America1000 03:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify - does my ALT1 suggestion prevent me from approving this? We are good to go with ALT1 as far as I'm concerned, and I didn't want to ignore this thread if someone was waiting on a response from me. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry, but upon taking a closer look, the sentence in the article stating content of the hook does not have an inline citation to a reliable source at the end of the sentence. See WP:DYKRULES #3b, which explains this requirement. North America1000 03:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Added it to the end of that sentence rather than just at the end of the next one. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the issue while I was away.Rain the 1 21:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on August 15[edit]

Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65

Reger in 1901
Reger in 1901
  • ... that a reviewer of Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65, twelve organ pieces by Max Reger (pictured), wrote that the composer was "still in his storm and stress period"?

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Leszek Jańczuk, we already know from the bot that it's long enough and new enough. A human review is needed to check other potential issues, like adequate sourcing, neutrality, and close paraphrasing. Please conduct a full review of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well sourced, written neutrally, no copyvio. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Leszek Jańczuk The complete reviewing criteria is located at WP:DYKRULES. For example, your review does not mention whether or not content of the hook is backed with an inline citation to a reliable source in the article, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. North America1000 10:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to do a full review. (If using the AGF tick, please explain the issue.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hook is short enough and formatted correctly, interesting, adequate QPQ. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As I said before, a new reviewer is needed to do a full review, and should any issues require the AGF tick, they should please be explained. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Luscombe Castle

5x expanded by Worm That Turned (talk) and Staceydolxx (talk). Nominated by Worm That Turned (talk) at 13:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC).

  • This article was promoted to Good Article status on August 17th, well within 7 days of the nomination. It's long enough at 11861 characters per DYKcheck. Apart from the lead, every paragraph has at least one footnote. Hook fact is footnoted and can be confirmed in online source via JSTOR. Earwig OK. No issues with neutrality. No pics to worry about. The one minor problem with this nomination is that the QPQ review is still on-going, with no final verdict there yet. So we should hold till that review gets completed. Symbol question.svg for now. --PFHLai (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svgQPQ review has been completed. No more outstanding issues with this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg it seems that this is not the last remaining chimneypiece by him. There is one in the V&A[7], there may be one for sale here (also mentioned here, so apparently not a replica). The Liverpool Museums also have one[8]. Perhaps the one at Luscombe Castle is the only one still in situ, but with such an outdated source, I would just look for a different hook and drop this one. Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I was under the impression it was the last one in situ, but how about this for an ALT, it's not as interesting, but definitely correct. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT1, including whether it is sufficiently interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)






Revival (comics)

  • ALT1:... that Revival writer Tim Seeley claims to have created the term "rural noir" to describe a hardboiled detective story set in a small town?
  • Reviewed: Exempt - fourth nom

Created/expanded by Argento Surfer (talk). Self-nominated at 14:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC).

  • ✓ Articled expanded from 2,331 bytes to 25,630 bytes
  • ✓ Long enough: 25,630 bytes
  • ✓ The article in general appears well cited
  • ✓ The hook is 167 characters without spaces
  • ✗ Hook: neither of the sources support the statement that a zebra was killed. "in the first issue there’s a zebra in Wausau that someone painted". One of the sources does state, "murder in the first issue, as strange as it is, actually happened" but does not clarify if this occurred to the zebra or something else like a person. This source states specifically that the first issue is based on actual events but does not expand beyond that about the rest of the series. I think the hook will need to be that specific or another source will need to support that this occurs routinely across the entire series.
  • ✗ Alt Hook: Seeley did not create the term "rural noir". There's plenty of book references of its use prior to the comic Revival such as this, some 20 years prior to the publication of Revival. "Rural noir" appears at least 18 times from books in the 20th century alone.
  • Symbol question.svg I find both hooks fascinating if they can be properly attributed to a source. Awaiting response from the nominator. Mkdwtalk 22:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I changed the second one to show Seeley claims to have coined the term, per the source provided.[1] I'm hunting for something more concrete on the zebra, but no luck yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I looked at that source and while he does mention inventing a new genre, because it's essentially a primary source claim, I don't think it should be included in the hook. I think very few DYK hooks should contain information is that is only supported by a statement made by the individual. There's a high probability it could be wrong and I'd feel conflicted allowing it to appear on the main page without being supported by a reliable third party source independent from quoting the author on that particular point. Let me know how th search goes for the other zebra and based on true crimes source. Regards, Mkdwtalk 18:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mkdw: I haven't found any actual news coverage - not sure when it happened, or who would have covered it - but I did find this interview where Seeley says "the zorse [zebra-horse] scene in issue one was inspired by a real event." I've added the source to the page to bridge the gap. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Chapo Trap House

Created by Brandt Luke Zorn (talk). Self-nominated at 04:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Note If approved this would not be able to run until after the election on November 8.  MPJ-DK  00:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 16[edit]

Moses Bensinger

Moses Bensinger 1896
Moses Bensinger 1896
  • ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was the instigator of the rules and regulations used in modern bowling?

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by Doug Coldwell (talk) at 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The only problem I see is the copyright status of the image. Just because it has probably been 70 years since the author of the image died doesn't necessarily mean that the image is in the public domain in the U.S. So you'll need to show evidence that the image meets one of these requirements. I will be nice and try to help find some of that evidence. Everything else is good to go. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jsayre64: I have no way of knowing if it has been 70 years since the author of the image died. The image was uploaded by another editor back in 2015 and it is being used in the German Wikipedia here. If that's all that is stopping the nomination, I can just remove his picture from the article and hook. You tell me what it will take to get the nomination through.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg The nomination is good to go. I found the image online in context here, as opposed to just this, and the website confirms it was published in Chicago in 1896. (I saw that there's at least one more public domain image of Moses Bensinger at that site, by the way.) I realize neither of you first uploaded that image, but you see why it's important to link to an actual webpage or book, not just to the image alone. And @7&6=thirteen: that looks great and would make enough for a Commons category. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Instigator is a somewhat odd choice of words unless, like most normal people, you think bowling is the most boring game in the world (other than golf, of course). EEng 00:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from prep 6 per this discussion at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose:
  • ALT1 ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was one of the instigators of the rules and regulations used in ten-pin bowling?
  • ALT2 ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) helped popularize modern bowling and billiards?

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Would one of these ALTs work that 7&6=thirteen proposes?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
ALT2 looks viable, but I'm afraid I haven't the time or energy to look any closer at this nomination today. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I think "ten-pin bowling" would be more appropriate than "modern bowling", as there are different kinds of bowling games. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) helped popularize ten-pin bowling and billiards?
  • ALT4 ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was the initiator of the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pen bowling?
Reference in article is "Brunswick" by Rick Kogan (page 25) "It took Bensinger five years to gather a group of bowlers and proprietors in New York City's Beethoven Hall. It was to be an informal get-together to discuss bowling rules and regulations. But by midnight of September 9, 1895, after hours of debate and eloquent speeches by Bensinger, the group had organized the American Bowling Congress." Here is that part of the book. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Dictionary.com gives as a definition of a "congress" as a formal meeting or assembly of representatives for the discussion, arrangement, or promotion of some matter of common interest. In this case the common interest to arrange and promote was a set of bowling rules and regulations. Bensinger worked to get bowlers and proprietors together on this for the first five years in the 1890s = initiator! Initiate = to begin, set going, or originate: to initiate major social reforms.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind here that Bensinger had the idea FIRST of discussing organizing bowling rules and regulations when he took over the Brunswick company in 1890. THEN a "congress" was formed to formalize this to be able enforce these rules. The American Bowling Congress was formalized AFTER a set of rules and regulations were agreed upon and there was then a need for an enforcer. Bensinger had been working on this idea of formal bowling rules and regulations for five years, NOT working on the idea of making the American Bowling Congress. That just became the enforcer of the bowling rules and regulations Bensinger had already been working on for some 5 years prior. That would make Bensinger then the initiator of the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pen bowling. Per article American Bowling Congress was the original codifier of all tenpin bowling standards, rules and regulations from 1895 onward. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
In light of ALT3, I struck ALT2. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: just providing a link to the latest at this relevant discussion. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jsayre64 for bringing that to my attention. Based on that then I would like to propose below for the hook
Here is page 25 of Kogan book which supports this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This is on page 24 of Kogan book "Brunswick - The Story of an American Company
This inline reference backs the above up. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Bensinger had an interest in getting these standardized because he was the new owner of Brunswick of as 1890 - the producer of bowling components like pins, balls, and alleys. Bensinger had no interest in forming the American Bowling Congress = that just came about from the group of bowlers and proprietors so that they could have national bowling tournaments (where everyone was using the same Rules). Bensinger just had interest in selling equipment = he was a businessman NOT a bowler. As the source says, ...the group had organized the American Bowling Congress. Bensinger did NOT initiate the ABC and the ABC did not initiate the Rules & Regulations. Bensinger had already been working on them since 1890, some 5 years. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This is complete page 24 of Kogan history book on Brunswick company. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Kogan book history and purpose.
Bio info about author Rick Kogan --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It makes perfect sense to me that Bensinger would want to standardize the size of the pins, balls, and alleys. Then he would know what to manufacture = since everyone would be using the same items for bowling, he could mass produce them and sell a lot to make BIG money. It was always in his best interest to get the equipment regulated to standards. So it's logical that he would be the one to initiate' bowling Rules and Regulations = to sell a bunch of equipment, starting in 1890. The ABC was just organized to make a set of Rules for tournaments, with everyone following the same rules and using the SAME equipment to keep a level playing field for everyone.
I don't see that your new references above support your original hook. One of them says he "standardized" the rules, but that's not the same as saying he initiated them. In any case, Fram pointed out in this thread that there are sources that credit others and that don't even mention Bensinger, so to promote a hook that claims Bensinger as "the" initiator looks problematic to say the least. Gatoclass (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The Kogan book is published by the Brunswick company, and the inline reference that supports the claim is... a press release by the Brunswick company[9]. A company wanting to promote a former president as the person that was the initiator behind the bowling rules isn't a surprise, but when no independent sources support this and most (all?) contradict this, then such a source is not acceptable at all. Fram (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Gatoclass, does ALT 7 work for you, in light of the last couple of postings by Doug Coldwell. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Gatoclass, are you out of this? If not, please respond. If so, can we have another reviewer? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The following are sources that support ALT 7 and are inline references already in the article. @Jsayre64: Thanks for proposing this one.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In 1895 he was part of the group that organized the American Bowling Congress.
The Big Lebowski: An Illustrated, Annotated History of the Greatest Cult By Jenny M. Jones
Chicago City in the Spotlight by Ron Rapoport
The Chicago Sports Reader: 100 Years of Sports in the Windy City By Steven A. Riess, Gerald R. Gems
Sports in America from Colonial Times to the Twenty-First Century By Steven A. Riess
Notable Corporate Chronologies A-K by Julie A. Mitchell
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article issues have been resolved and is ready for a new review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be sufficient to say the "American Bowling Congress standardized the rules and regulations ..." because it seems to be what the sources say. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
That looks better IMO. I'm not going to complete the review on this one right now as I just did a bunch of reviews and want a break from it, but I will try to get back to this in the next day or two if nobody else has done so in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Just taking a quick look at the article, I notice it still contains the claim that "Bensinger was the initiator of the official rules and regulations used in the sport of modern ten-pin bowling", which is one of the statements previously objected to in the hook, so I think that will have to go before this can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it is still in the sources because he did it. WP:Truth and WP:Reliable. With respect, I for one will not engage in Revisionist history.
In any event, that fact and the citations have nothing to do with the hooks as presently constituted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
To elucidate further, these have sources that have not yet been added to the article due to concerns, notwithstanding concerns about Citation overkill. Here are more sources:
If you want we can add strike these to from the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You apparently want to strike the following:<block quote> Bensinger was the initiator of the official rules and regulations used in the sport of modern ten-pin bowling[2] and promoted them in the early 1890s throughout the United States.[3] He helped found the American Bowling Congress in 1895,[4][5][6] which set in place a legislative body that enforced these rules and regulations for all to follow as the standard for the game of bowling.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]</block quote> That is what the sources say. WP:RS, WP:Verifiability. Sorry you don't like them, but insisting that this has to be bowdlerized as a condition precedent to getting DYK approval is wrong-headed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Phegley, Kiel (March 31, 2012) "ECCC12: Seeley & Norton go rural noir with "Revival"," Comic Book Resources. Retrieved July 15, 2016
  2. ^ "Brunswick Bowling Launches Application to Highlight Bowlers Around the World". 24-7 Press Release Newswire. March 23, 2011. Retrieved August 31, 2016. Moses Bensinger, Brunswick's son-in-law, had a vision for the modern game of bowling. He standardized rules for the game and organized the first American Bowling Congress (ABC) in 1895, which held the first significant bowling tournament in 1902. 
  3. ^ Kogan 1985, p. 25.
  4. ^ Rapoport 2001, p. 237.
  5. ^ Cayton 2006, p. 881.
  6. ^ St. James Press 2006, p. 70.
  7. ^ Riess & Gems 2009, p. 13.
  8. ^ Riess 2015, p. 2441.
  9. ^ Mitchell 2001, p. 401.
  10. ^ Brunswick Corporation 1934, p. xvii.
  11. ^ "About Brunswick". Brunswick Corporation. 2016. Retrieved August 16, 2016. He standardized rules for the game and organized the first American Bowling Congress in 1895 
  12. ^ Cayton, Andrew R. L., Editor; Sisson, Richard; Zacher, Chris. The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 26, 2016. In 1895, Moses Bensinger of the Brunswick Company founded the primarily midwestern American Bowling Congress. 
  13. ^ Pfister, Gertrud. Gymnastics, a Transatlantic Movement: From Europe to America. Retrieved September 26, 2016. Moses Bensinger since the 1870s, engineered mergers with business rivals and orchestrated the founding of the ABC, which standardized rules and equipment." 
  14. ^ International Directory of Company Histories. 77. p. 70. Retrieved September 26, 2016. Bensinger also was instrumental in organizing the American Bowling Congress in 1895. 
  • There are no other references that say anything different. We have to go with what the references say.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are references that say different, which is how we ended up here in the first place. And none of the sources provided above support the statement that "Bensinger was the initiator of the official rules and regulations used in the sport of modern ten-pin bowling" except those published by Brunswick, which, as Fram already pointed out above, is not an independent source. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jsayre64: 's ALT7 says Bensinger helped organize the American Bowling Congress and the many references in the article that support this are NOT from Brunswick, but from independent historians that have no connection to Brunswick. If you have ACTUAL reference sources that say different than these sources please tell me what they are. Thanks. -- Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

How about paying attention to the subject under discussion? We have already settled on a hook, namely, ALT8. The issue now is that the article still states that "Bensinger was the initiator of the official rules and regulations used in the sport of modern ten-pin bowling" when that was already rejected as a hook. There are no sources for the given statement other than those from Brunswick, so what I have said is that the statement should also be removed from the article. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Didn't realize ALT8 was settled on. Took out that wording to expedite getting this nomination approved quickly then. -- Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I assume then since this was the only concern and I took out those words that was holding up ALT 8, then this will be the hook that is approved and we are Good To Go? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on August 18[edit]

Lupe Fiasco versus Daigo Umehara

  • Reviewed: (review of other DYK nomination upcoming)

Created by Maplestrip (talk). Self-nominated at 14:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • "of Street Fighter V" is redundant, otherwise this looks okay.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Otherwise, he may have lost a rap battle ;) To be honest, I'm not sure how to phrase it better. ~Mable (chat) 21:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Intelligentsium: What are you doing? ~Mable (chat) 20:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Maplestrip: - Sorry for the repeated reverts. The first time was to fix a bug in the review code, but this latest time is because transcluding all of the DYK pages with reviews is causing the nominations page to become too large. I have removed bot reviews that did not discover issues temporarily to mitigate this issue as the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Problem evolves. Intelligentsium 20:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah, thanks for the clarification. ~Mable (chat) 22:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on August 19[edit]

Lena Sundström

Lena Sundström
Lena Sundström
  • ... that Lena Sundström (pictured) and her husband singer Bo competed as a team in the TV show På spåret where they were placed fifth?
    ALT1... that Lena Sundström (pictured) and her husband Bo competed as a team in the TV show På spåret where they were placed fifth?
    ALT2... that Swedish journalist Lena Sundström (pictured) and her husband Bo competed as a team in the TV show På spåret where they were placed fifth?

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the article is neutral, and the Swedish language sources make it difficult for me to judge whether there are any copyright issues. The hooks are all acceptable, but people outside Sweden are unlikely to have heard of Lena or the TV show, so I would like to suggest ALT3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would accept the new suggested hook. Good one.BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg The article meets the length and age criteria. The hook is interesting and cited to 2 Swedish sources. The article meets the citation and NPOV guidelines. After reading the article I am sure the text has been framed by the nominator and does not violate copyright issues. QPQ has been provided. AGF on non-English sources. Good to Go. --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on August 20[edit]

Dafo Temple, Zhangye

The reclining Buddha of Zhangye
The reclining Buddha of Zhangye

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 17:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The claim seems to be disputed. Neutrality of the reference (China Tourism Press) is questionable. A neutral RS says that the largest reclining Buddha indoors is in Burma.Redtigerxyz Talk 08:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That's why I used the word "claimed". What the source says is that the indoor reclining Buddha here is the largest in the world, it isn't cited as reliable evidence of that, just for the fact that the claim has been made. I don't see a problem, but we could equally well just say this... Moonraker (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
For neutrality, we need to remove this claim too, which is contradicted by other data and retain only "the largest reclining clay Buddha statue in China". Redtigerxyz Talk 16:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to remove what you call "this claim", which is cited to a peer-reviewed reliable source. When you mention "other data", if you mean other less reliable sources which give slightly different figures, you seem to be misunderstanding the way Wikipedia deals with facts. However, we could say this... Moonraker (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't be here, Redtigerxyz. We need someone to take over from you. Moonraker (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
ALT3: ... the Dafo Temple in Zhangye holds a large reclining Buddha (pictured)?
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think even Redtigerxes can find anything in that to object to, but he has thrown his toys out of the pram and rolled away. Someone else seems to be needed for the review. Moonraker (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)





Articles created/expanded on August 21[edit]

Yale Institute of International Studies

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 17:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Hook comment: I think we can drop everything in the hook after "and." Surely all or most international research institutes seek to have their research be influential? Neutralitytalk 04:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Influential among other academics, certainly, but influential among government officials, not always. But how about something more specific:



Articles created/expanded on August 22[edit]

Debatable, Make Me an Egghead

  • ... that Debatable and Make Me an Egghead were both commissioned for 20 half-hour episodes and five 45-minute episodes, and aired in adjacent time slots?

Created by Launchballer (talk), Wonderwizard (talk), and Nigej (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 09:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

  • ALT0 is absolutely fascinating! EEng 18:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Agreed, this hook is really dull, if accepted this will just get rejected at WT:DYK. Joseph2302 10:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I've struck the hook as clearly failing the interesting requirement at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


TEDES (traffic enforcement system)

  • ... that the number of traffic collisions in Gaziantep, Turkey, decreased by about 40% within two months from the installation of the traffic enforcement system TEDES?

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 19:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

Older discussion
  • Symbol question.svg The article is well sourced, long and new enough. The hook is interesting and long enough with a citation immediately coming after it. I see no problem with the article. All the sources are in Turkish, can you find any english reliable sources regarding this title? By the way, I think the hook wording needs to be changed to "... the installation of the TEDES traffic enforcement system ?" --Mhhossein talk 04:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that the number of traffic collisions in Gaziantep, Turkey, decreased by about 40% within two months from the installation of the TEDES traffic enforcement system?
  • @Mhhossein: Thank you for your review. I've added an English-language reference to the article, and provided ALT1 in accordance with your proposal. CeeGee 05:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest the following hook:
ALT2:... that the number of traffic collisions in Gaziantep, Turkey, decreased by about 40% within two months after the installation of TEDES?
Symbol voting keep.svg I see no further problem. Good to go with ALT2. --Mhhossein talk 12:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reopened. The hook makes a claim that is unsubstantiated by the article. It doesn't cover the city as a whole, as implied by the hook, it covers just those areas where TEDES has been installed. Please fix the hook before renominating. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Rambling Man: Please check whether the following ALT3 I supply is conform with your claim. Thanks. CeeGee 06:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that the number of traffic collisions at the TEDES-monitored intersections and fast lanes in Gaziantep, Turkey, declined by about 40% within two months from its installation?
CeeGee I took the liberty of trimming ALT3 a bit (now reposted as ALT4), let me know if you have any objections). Gatoclass (talk 10:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. However, I hope no one objects the change from "two months" to "weeks". Because the article says so. CeeGee 10:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Two months is only a few weeks, so I wouldn't think so :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALTS 3 and 4 ready for re-review. Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bishophill

  • ... that Bishophill, an area of central York in England, may have been named after the "Biche Doughter" tower on the city walls?

Created by Warofdreams (talk). Self-nominated at 13:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg It's a nice article with pictures going into the 21st century, which makes me wonder why only two sources are cited? I listed 3 more book sources on the talk page which could be used to expand the early history section. Perhaps more sources are available on Google for the later history.
  • Otherwise, new enough, long enough, neutrally written. Unable to check for close paraphrasing in offline sources. Hook is interesting; offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on August 23[edit]

John Hazelwood

Commodore John Hazelwood
Commodore John Hazelwood

5x expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Gwillhickers: The article has been 5x expanded from just over 1000 characters to just below 6500 characters starting on August 23rd. The nomination was on the 29th, putting this within 7 days. Clearly, thus, it is long enough. The article reads neutrally, has in-line citations, and doesn't have any apparent close paraphrasing issues, however, I would suggest the nominator look at the Copyvio review here. There are 3 or so sentences you might want to look into rewording, if you can. The far bigger issue though is that the hook is too long. It is over 200 characters. You'll need to propose a shorter alternative hook. The QPQ is done and the image used is in the public domain and looks fine at the size, so no problems there. It's just the hook that needs fixing. SilverserenC 00:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Did some rewording per your recommendation. Other items are common use or general phrases. Also, here is the shortened hook:
  • ALT1 :... that in 1777 Commodore John Hazelwood (pictured) was recommended by General Washington to command the American fleet on the Delaware River and lead it to safety, doing so with no shots fired by the British navy? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: That's...uh....that's only one character shorter than the previous hook and still over 200 characters. >_>; SilverserenC 18:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren: -- Hmmm.. By my count it's only 195 characters. Are you counting the characters (10) in the word (pictured)? What about trailing spaces? Character counters will count any spaces before and after the hook. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: I was counting the 10 characters in pictured, yes, since it will still be a part of the text line. And I assume the 200 character limit is due to not messing up the format of the DYK section once all of the hooks are put in. Do we normally not count things like "(pictured)" when doing hook characters? I just want to make sure the formatting will hold up. SilverserenC 19:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Approve original nom Okay then. Apologies for the holdup. Your hook is right up on the character line, so I wanted to make sure. You're good to go. SilverserenC 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren: Many thanks for your effort. Just an additional note. I'll be adding a bit more content to the narrative in the next few days, and will be citing it with the same sources. Of course I'll be mindful of para phrases and such. You may want to drop in again and give the article a peek. Again, many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Regardless, the hook is still much longer than it needs to be. I'll see if I can come up with something a bit more concise. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning 'leading the fleet to safety with no shots fired' is the really interesting part of the hook. Mentioning Hazelwood, Washington and the Delaware River are important, as is mentioning the British Navy -- all under 200 characters. If you can demonstrate some pressing issue other than a desire to be more concise, while somehow keeping this information, we can consider it. Otherwise we should keep the approved hook as is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I like using British fleet, but this hook, (at 171 characters) doesn't mention 1777, or that Hazelwood was a Commodore and has a dual reference to the British. Here's an even shorter hook (at 164 characters) that mentions 1777, Commodore and British fleet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
However, I still prefer the approved hook, at less than 200 characters, it also mentions the American fleet on the Delaware River, reads better than all the alternatives and doesn't attempt to compact everything into a truncated sentence. A shorter hook by itself doesn't mean it's a better hook. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"With no shots fired from the British fleet" reads to me like the British refrained from opening fire, when I think the intent, is it not, is to say that that Hazelwood surprised them so that they didn't have time to open fire? Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hazelwood had orders to get the fleet upriver to safety, not to engage the British. 'No shots fired' more than suggests that the British were unaware of Hazelwood's movements or simply were not in a position to do anything. Unless everyone's sound asleep it's sort of difficult to surprise someone with a fleet of slow moving sail ships, etc, even at night. The source doesn't get into details at this point. If we are going to assume anything it would be that, the Delaware at the mouth being a very wide river, Hazelwood made his move, possibly at night, while the British were still trying to get their act together across the river in newly occupied Philadelphia. However, I will look for other content on this idea. Meanwhile, the hook is just a general statement with perhaps an interesting point and some context, all meant to create curiosity and invite the reader to the article where he or she can look into these things as much as is possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be really good if you could confirm the details of this maneouvre for the readers' benefit before we promote this nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
That would be a nice addition to the story, but the hook doesn't require the finer details of Hazelwood's maneuvers at this one point in Hazelwood's overall biography. The hook provides enough details to convey the general episode accurately. i.e.Washington's recommendation, 1777, the American fleet, the British, the Delaware River and Hazelwood's leading of the fleet to safety with no shots fired. The article itself gives insight into British activity, as they were far from securing their position at Philadelphia having just arrived. I'll look for any further material that could shed additional light on Hazelwood's actual 'tactics'. Meanwhile, we should go with the approved hook, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: I have just added "that" to the hooks that didn't have the word. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional notes. @BlueMoonset: Re: The shortest hook: ALT2 is not supported by the sources. We don't know if Hazelwood lead the American fleet 'past' the British fleet. The original hook merely says, no shots were fired by the British navy (who also had positions on shore). This doesn't mean that Hazelwood sailed "past a British fleet" while they just sat there and didn't fire a shot. ALT2 also directly implies that the British and the American fleets were in close proximity. None of the sources say anything about 'where' on the river the British navy was in relation to the American fleet when Hazelwood lead his fleet upriver. We do know however that the British had just arrived and were busy securing their primary objective and position in Philadelphia and largely committed there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just realized that with the addition of the word 'that' to the original hook it was over 200 characters. Did some condensing. The original hook now has only 190 characters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Gwillhickers, the whole point behind ALT hooks is that hooks shouldn't be rewritten in place, but are revised by creating a new ALT (fixing formatting like adding a missing required "that" or making sure the parenthesis of "(pictured)" is also italicized isn't an issue). So I've restored the original hook and struck it too, and presented your 190-character condensation below as ALT4 (with a minor grammatical fix):

However, I have just read the source, and I'm confused about the hook. First, so far as I can tell, the fleet in question was the Pennsylvania Navy, of which Hazelwood was the Commodore, so he already commanded it, which may be why this was a recommendation rather than an order. I also have to ask whether Washington was at the convened meeting, or whether he just ordered it to happen. (The word "convene" allows for both possible meanings.) The source says the recommendation came from a trio of other generals and doesn't mention Washington as one of them; do we know that Washington was at the meeting himself? If not, then the hook and article need to be revised because it wouldn't have been Washington's recommendation. (The final paragraph of Military career of George Washington#Loss of Philadelphia says that Washington presided from a distance over the loss of control of the Delaware River to the British, but whether this extended to convening this particular meeting from a distance I don't know. Still, it's important to check.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your indepth analysis. Hazelwood was promoted to Commodore of both the Pennsylvania Navy and the Continental Navy in 1777, before the Siege of Fort Mifflin. As Commodore he engaged the British in a number of battles and skirmishes before the fort was captured on November 15. As the article explains, two days after forts Mifflin and Mercer fell, Washington called a meeting with his top commanders in a War Council which met on one of Hazelwood's ships upriver where it was secured by American forces. It would be a big assumption to think Washington, whose headquarters was in nearby Whitemarsh, called a War Council with his top commanders and didn't bother to show up. The others in the council also made the recommendation, but as head of this council we can't just assume Washington wasn't on board with the recommendation. The hook simply says that Washington made the recommendation and can't get into all the details. Imo, we don't need to find a source that spells out the idea that Washington was present at his own meeting, and that he individually made the recommendation also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, let's take a look at the ALT4 hook, and I'll explain my reasoning. We both want a hook that won't be challenged after it's been approved and promoted to prep. Given Washington's proximity to Hazelwood's location, it's certainly possible, even likely, that he was at that Council of War, but the source does not place him there, and that's what we have to go by. Here goes:
  • was recommended by General Washington to command the American fleet on the Delaware River: when I read this, I interpret it to mean that Washington recommended Hazelwood for the post of commanding the American fleet on the Delaware river. So far as I can tell, this isn't the case—Hazelwood already had that command. Indeed, the article says nothing about Washington recommending Hazelwood for his command, nor does the source. Three generals at the Council of War on the 18th (the article's "two days later" and "November 20" add up to it occurring on the 22nd, which is clearly not correct) recommended that Hazelwood take his ships upriver past the British at the first opportunity presented by favorable winds, but the source does not explicitly mention Washington as recommending it—commanding generals frequently do not even vote at a Council of War according to the CoW Wikipedia article—and to say in Wikipedia's voice that Washington himself did recommend this course to Hazelwood without a source saying so is ultimately OR.
  • and led it to safety with no shots fired by the British navy: the article doesn't mention that no shots were fired (it really isn't the same as "no attempt made by them to stop passage", since you can still try to kill a few of the enemy even if you can't stop their passage), and if you want that fact in the hook the article wording needs to be amended, which shouldn't be an issue because it's in the source. You can certainly say no shots were fired by the British navy if you wish, since the British forces fired no shots at all, army or navy.
So the ALT4 hook doesn't hold together. The same problem is true, to a greater or lesser extent, in the other ALTs, which all have some version of Washington recommending Hazelwood for command. (I've struck them all.) I believe that the following hook, based on ALT3 and 200 characters, is backed up by sourcing; please let me know if it works for you. (If the word "upriver" is deemed disposable, that would take it down to 192.)
It would be a simple logical deduction to say Washington, as a council member, was behind the recommendation. It would be sort of reaching, OR even, to assume otherwise if the source didn't say so. If Washington was in disagreement with his own council and actually didn't want Hazelwood to lead the fleet, the reliable source would have mentioned this important distinction. You seem to be assuming that Washington was not at the meeting, which would be OR, and then have used this to substantiate the notion that Washington perhaps never made any sort of recommendation at all, which is again OR. However, you've come up with an ALT I can live with here, as it implies that Washington, as a member of the council, was behind the recommendation as well. Nice. ALT5 is GTG, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Why do we need to know that "a Council of War convened by George Washington recommended that ... "? That's the sort of detail best left to the article. It's completely inessential to the central hook fact, which is that Hazelwood successfully took the fleet to safety past the British. Hooks are supposed to be short and punchy and easy to read, not full of extraneous details that make needless demands on the readers' attention. I suggest the phrase be dropped altogether and we go with something like:

  • ALT6: ... that in 1777, Commodore John Hazelwood (pictured) took the American Delaware River fleet upriver to safety, with not a shot fired by the British? Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Otoh, at 177 characters there's no pressing need to remove this important historical context from the hook. Washington's council marked a major turning point in the Revolution, and the phrase fits nicely into the sentence. Also, by removing mention of Washington's council we also remove mention of Hazelwood being recommended. If the reader is interested in the topic he or she will not see this simple historical context as an "extraneous detail". Don't mind condensing some text when necessary, but removing major points of context from the original hook isn't called for if the hook is well under the 200 character limit. Prefer ALT5. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Washington's council marked a major turning point in the Revolution - that is only your assertion, but more importantly, that won't be at all obvious from the addition of the above phrase to the hook so it's still redundant to it. Apart from which, lots of commanders get their jobs from being recommended to their posts, so it simply isn't conveying any useful information in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you won't find anyone half familiar with the American Revolution not seeing the fall of Philadelphia and forts Mifflin and Mercer as a major event, if not a turning point. -- Besides, we are not saying anything about a turning point. If we clip mention of Washington's council we also have to clip mention of the recommendation. Also, by simply mentioning Washington, we draw that many more viewers to the article. Again, at well under 200 characters in ALT5, there's no reason to continue deliberating over an argument that's already been addressed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I'm not quite sure why you say the ALT5 hook is "well under 200 characters in ALT5" when it's exactly 200 characters (starting with "that" and including all spaces and the final "?" but excluding " (pictured)", which is the rule for counting DYK hook length). I had quite a time keeping it within bounds; as I originally noted, it could be 192 if "upriver" was deemed disposable. I am sympathetic to your desire to keep Washington in the hook to draw eyes. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My apologies to both you and Gatoclass. I was experimenting with other hooks and must have counted the wrong one. In any case, yes, mentioning Washington will not only 'hook' many of the readers but it will also convey the idea that Hazelwood was an important Commodore and among the most famed navy people of that era. I came up with one more alt, with only 180 characters.

ALT7 ... that in 1777, George Washington's war council recommended that John Hazelwood (pictured) lead the American fleet up the Delaware River to safety and did so with no shots fired by the British?

I'd like to add Commodore to the hook, adding 9 characters, but can live without its inclusion I suppose. I'm hoping the shorten hook along with its simple, yet important, historical context will appeal to the casual reader as well as the inquisitive history buff and student. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check the remaining ALT hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems this template, almost four weeks old, has taken up more than its fair share of space on the nomination page, discussed at length, and at this point I'm perfectly willing to let the administrators in charge decide which hook is the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT7 isn't grammatical, it effectively reads: "Washington's council recommended [something] and did so with no shots fired by the British". Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"Something"? The hook clearly says that "...Washington's war council recommended that John Hazelwood (pictured) lead the American fleet up the Delaware River..." Nothing ungrammatical about that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I reduced the intermediate phrase to a simpler form in order to highlight the ungrammatical structure. The sentence basically says that Washington's war council managed to recommend something without attracting fire from the British, when the intention is to say that John Hazelwood took the fleet up the river without attracting fire. Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, would adding a "he" (and a comma) solve this problem—"to safety, and he did so"—or are there other issues with the ALT7 hook? If not, here's ALT7a:
'He' is not needed as it's understood that Hazelwood was the one recommended to lead the fleet. The comma is also not needed as it precedes the word 'and', but I can live with or without the added comma if anyone's insisting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Siti Nurhaliza

Siti Nurhaliza in 2013
Siti Nurhaliza in 2013

Created by Syfuel (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 02:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2943 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✗ This article has the following issues:
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (1.0% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 03:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • To the reviewer, I've added the expand list template to the article because I know this list in incomplete in the sense there are many other songs by her that I can't add to the list because of the lack of reliable sources to back them up. Some of them are available on YouTube but since they are from fans' channels, I can't add them here. I may add the list of songs that I can't find reliable sources in its talk page for reference. Feel free to ask if you're not clear on anything. :D SyFuelIgniteBurned 05:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @Syfuel: This article/list is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the article is neutral and I doubt it has copyright issues. The hook fact, as mentioned in the lead, has two references but I do not understand these. What does "liner notes" mean? Alternatively, if your list includes songs in all those languages, you could just state here an example recorded in each language, made easier by your colour coding, so that I can verify the claim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in my hometown until 19/7 at the moment and I can only access the Internet via mobile phone, so I'm really sorry if I can't get back to you ASAP. Liner notes are basically notes that are included in album's sleeves where information about the album (lyrics and credits) can be found. I follow the credits on List of songs recorded by Katy Perry and few others as guide. For the songs in Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, they are a bit tricky for non-native to differentiate. This is because, when they are sung they sound very similar. Plus, many of her songs had their lyrics written by writers from Malaysia and Indonesia. For Arabic, the best example is her song, "Asma ul Husna". You can stream it on Spotify. Throughout the song, she recites the 99 Names of Allah in the original language which is Arabic. For Mandarin Chinese, she recorded three songs , Xin Yuan, Yue Liang Dai Biao Wo De Xin, and Zheng Fu. You can listen to these songs on YouTube where you can verify them. Hope these explain. Thanks! Please pardon if I can't get back to you ASAP. SyFuelIgniteBurned 14:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Having looked at this some more I think I can approve the hook, which does have inline references even if they are in a somewhat unusual form. And the hook facts are referenced in the article Siti Nurhaliza as well. So, good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on August 24[edit]

Takuro Morinaga

  • ... that Japanese economist Takuro Morinaga has proposed a tax on good-looking men?

Created/expanded by CFCF (talk). Self-nominated at 12:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg This article is new enough, having been created on 24 August 2016. It only just meets the length criteria; it is currently 1,560 characters after the section headers, bibliography and references are excluded. Every paragraph has a citation, but there are claims in the lead which are unsourced and not repeated below, so they require verification. The lead is vague, for example, he is a professor of economics at the university, not just an "economist" there. Saitama is a city of one million people and the capital of Saitama Prefecture so describing it as a suburb of Tokyo is inaccurate; in any event, that is tangential to the subject and a link to the university is all that is required. The "otaku" sub-section belongs in the otaku article, not here. There is scant information of a biographical nature, e.g. where he was born, where he went to school, etc. As a university professor with regular television appearances this information should be easy to find. In short, this article is not at a level that can be featured on the main page and needs some more work before it can be reconsidered. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thats just not true, those are not requirements for a DYK at all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
There is an extreme difference between a work in progress and missing specific details when there already is a significant degree of coverage. DYK does not make requirements on covering most details of a topic like WP:GA does. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@CFCF: But it's a biography, so it needs biographical details. Actually, I think you're lucky that Athomeinkobe took up this review, because an editor like myself who isn't familiar with Japan would have missed a lot of those details, and then someone would have pounced on it during its time on the main page and reported it to WP:ERRORS. Instead of arguing the point, why don't you try to expand the article per the reviewer's suggestions, or just say that you can't? Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. The references are all bare URLs that need to be formatted per Rule D3. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Articles created/expanded on August 25[edit]

Clay Blaker

  • Comment: article created 8/24 by AngieBocas, had many problems, was nominated for deletion. Article repaired with appropriate references 8/25.

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Ubiquity (talk). Self-nominated at 17:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✗ This article is too short at 1305 characters (the DYK minimum is 1500 characters)
      • Article has been expanded and is now beyond 1700 characters. ubiquity (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 26.5% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
        • Automated copyright "hits" mostly due to song titles, which of course must be copied accurately. ubiquity (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No overall issues detected
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 79 characters
    • ✓ Ubiquity has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 3 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by human reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg For a start, I have changed "six" in the hook to "seven", because both article and source mention there was a single song followed by six more. Although you have done a substantial amount of work improving this article, I don't think it qualifies for DYK as a two-fold expansion of a BLP (it had some references before you rewrote it and the expansion was less than two-fold). However, it would qualify as a new article if you are prepared to include the original creator in the credits, even though little of their work remains. If you are happy with this, I will finish the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)



Bound (video game)

Created/expanded by Zxcvbnm (talk). Self-nominated at 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 21:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 09:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 4833 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (19.4% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 69 characters
    • ✓ Zxcvbnm has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 5 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 21:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by human reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


Tharsis (video game)

Created/expanded by Zxcvbnm (talk). Self-nominated at 04:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 03:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 8119 characters
    • ✗ Paragraphs [2] (Extra ... effect.),[3] (At ... dice.),[4] (The ... decision.),[5] (The ... female.),[6] (However, ... home.),[7] (During ... destroyed.),[8] (The ... unknown.) in this article lack a citation.
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (2.9% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 165 characters
    • ✓ Zxcvbnm has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 5 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by human reviewer. Zxcvbnm, please note that sourcing will indeed be needed for the entire Gameplay section (at least one source citation per paragraph); if this counts as a work of fiction, then sourcing should not be necessary for the Plot section, but if you got the Plot from anyone or anything other than your own experience with the game, then you need to source it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a work of fiction and the plot was not referenced from anywhere besides playing the game itself. I have added references to the Gameplay section as per your request.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on August 26[edit]

Johannes Bilberg

Johannes Bilberg
Johannes Bilberg
  • ... that Swedish professor Johannes Bilberg (pictured) published in Latin under the title Refractio solis inoccidui, in septemtrionalibus oris (the midnight sun's right and sightly room in the northlands)?

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self-nominated at 17:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The English translation in the original hook is pretty incomprehensible and when I tried Google Translate it was even worse. The image is in the public domain, the article is neutral and free from copyright issues. I have done some copyediting on the article. How about
  • I support the ALT hook as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As I proposed ALT2 and did some copyediting to the article, it might be best to have someone else finish this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Former Residence of Lu Xun (Shanghai)

Former Residence of Lu Xun in Shanghai
Former Residence of Lu Xun in Shanghai

Created by Wishva de Silva (talk). Self-nominated at 12:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough. Long enough. Neutral tone. Citations throughout *but* a lot of the citations don't support the text. Citation #2 in the lede doesn't seem to support his wife and his son living there. At least not according to the Google translation in English of the citation. Also none of the citations (3, 4, 5) support the previous sentences. Likewise with the hook; it's interesting but doesn't have a citation right next to it. Now, citation #9 a sentence away does have that. But citation #10 doesn't seem to have anything to do with his son living there. Citations need to be reviewed and fixed. The larger issue is that the article doesn't really have much material on the museum itself. Most of the article deals with the author's life itself. Hybernator (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hybernator: Hi! Sorry for such a late reply. I fixed the referencing issues you pointed out by rearranging them a bit. Thanks for pointing out. WdS | Talk 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

PSLV-C5

Sketch of Indian expendable launch vehicle, PSLV.
Sketch of Indian expendable launch vehicle, PSLV.
  • ...that PSLV-C5 (pictured) deployed the IRS-P6 satellite into orbit in 2003, the then heaviest and most sophisticated satellite built by the Indian space agency?

Created by AKS.9955 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
  • --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure how the bot calculated the length, but it is well above 1,500 characters. Reviewer, please advice if you have any observations. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Botop here; while a small discrepancy between the bot's count and the count from Shubinator's tool is normal, Shubinator's tool gives 1313 characters, within margin of error and still too short for DYK. Intelligentsium 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Lead section: 615
  • Mission highlights: 180
  • Payload: 362 520
  • Launch & planned flight profile (excluding table): 335
  • Total: 1,492. 1,650.
Will expand further Article expanded to desired length. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 21:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • AKS.9955, DYK requires a minimum of 1500 prose characters, which does not include tables, bulleted lists, blockquotes, etc. The article is currently 1472 prose characters according to DYKcheck, which is the gold standard for determining DYK article length. You may wish to start using it, since your current method is not accurate. Please continue expanding the article, as it is not yet long enough. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello BlueMoonset, I am aware about the requirements. The eligibility criteria reads "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.)". It does not mention anything about bulleted lists. Besides, what we read under the section Mission highlights is not a typical list but are the summarized highlights. I am only going by the DYK rules and trust this will be in order. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry, AKS.9955, but a bulleted list is a form of list, and what you quoted above has "lists" in what is ignored in the DYK count. You need to get to 1,500 excluding all that other material. It shouldn't be that difficult, since the infobox contains information not in the article proper, such as the end of mission information, which ought also to be in the article and sourced. If you want the Mission highlights section to count, then you should convert it to prose; as long as it's in a list, it will not count. I am troubled, however, by some errors in the text, and overreliance on pre-mission information. For example, the "pre-flight prediction of covering overall distance of 827 kilometres" (which is also problematic from a grammatical standpoint) is simply wrong. The flight needed to get to an altitude of 827 kilometres in order to insert the satellite into low earth orbit, but it traveled a great many more kilometres than that to get that high (it didn't go straight up). How far did it travel? Did it actually reach the predicted 827 kilometres? What was the eventual orbit of the satellite? Of the remaining stage of the rocket (in the "graveyard" mentioned in the infobox)? The article should be plenty long enough once you've addressed these issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  1. Length: Although the DYK rule does not specify it, but since you are the reviewer, I have to go by your judgement and will expand. Not a difficult task.
  2. End of mission (graveyard mention): In one of the PSLV related citations, I remember reading this but it appears that I forgot to add the reference. I am trying to search the link. If I cannot, I will delete the accidental un-sourcced information.
  3. Distance: I am sorry but I cannot draw my own conclusions here. Information quoted has been lifted from the official PSLV-C5 brochure.
    I will complete this and notify you. Thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello BlueMoonset, as we discussed above, I have increased the prose length and deleted the mention of "graveyard orbit" since I am unable to find the reference I saw. Please let me know if something else is needed and apologies for the delay in finishing this. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • AKS.9955, the "pre-flight prediction of covering overall distance of 827 kilometres" phrase has not been changed: it is both inaccurate—altitude is not distance traveled—and the phrasing is ungrammatical. This has to be fixed. You should consider requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors, since there are other problematic sentences. Even if the official brochure (a primary source written before the launch) doesn't have the information about total distance traveled or the orbit altitude of the satellite, there may be others that do: what about news reports from after the launch? As I said above, I believe the article relies too heavily on pre-mission information (plans) and not enough on post-mission information (what actually happened). Finally, until there is a working wikilink for PSOM, you need to (the first time it appears) either explain what that is, or at least give its full name. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Altitude & distance: I see where the confusion was. There was a typographical error and instead of altitude, I used the term distance. I have corrected it.
  • Post launch other sources: News reports such as this, which covered the launch does not talk about the actual altitude and lots of other actual key performance indicators.
  • Article depended on pre-launch information: Please understand that either pre or post, majority of the information will remain the same. What will differ are the launch timings, speed, time taken, altitude and distance. Only place where the planned information is mentioned is in the table under Launch & planned flight profile section.
  • PSOM: Done. I will also create this page in few days (just FYI).
    Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, is there anything else I need to do on this entry? Let me know. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:AKS.9955, the article still needs a copyedit: there are partial sentences, unclear antecedents, and other issues. I'm still troubled about the lack of actual information about the launch as opposed to predictive information about how it was supposed to go. (You acknowledge this yourself: What will differ are the launch timings, speed, time taken, altitude and distance. That's a lot—the actual results of the rocket's launch and flight!) This lack also applies to the satellite: the article says it had a design life of five years. Given that it was launched in 2003 and this is 2016, there should be actual information available about how long it remained in service, and whether it supplied the quantity and quality of data that was expected. Finally, the Sriharikota Launching Range was renamed to Satish Dhawan Space Centre in 2002 according to the centre's Wikipedia article, and news reports (including the Economic Times, ref 4) give the latter name for the launch indicating that the rename had happened by October 2003, so I've removed the assertion that the older name was used then. Unfortunately, this brings the article back down to 1450 prose characters, too short for DYK. Adding more information about the actual launch results and the satellite lifetime would solve this problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • BlueMoonset, thanks for your feedback. You must understand that if the information is NOT available on freely reliable and verifiable sources, then I cannot fabricate / speculate the information. Best is to leave the article with verifiable and reliable information available now, and in the future any user can improve the article as and when more information becomes available. Also understand that this article is about the launch vehicle and not the satellite. Details about the satellite are captured in the respective article. I will check for copyedit and also increase the length and ping you. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on August 27[edit]

Foyles Building

Foyles Building, 2006
Foyles Building, 2006
  • ... that the roof of the Foyles Building (pictured) was "covered" with copies of Hitler's Mein Kampf to discourage German air raids?

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 00:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Both supposed dead links fixed. QPQ coming shortly... Edwardx (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • QPQ done. Edwardx (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I could not access either of the sites to which the hook facts are referenced and accept them in good faith, and I was able to verify the facts at this site. However the hook is untrue, but could be restated as ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT1. (Original hook as been struck per review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)





2016 Baku GP2 Series round

5x expanded by MWright96 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

  • ALT0: Wow, the first since 2012! Can you imagine that? ALT1: Wow! The seventh in history! That's a real accomplishment. EEng 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth: I agree with the hook, however I have made some minor changes to it. MWright96 (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT2 (I am not allowed to review my own hook). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


The Word for World Is Forest

Improved to Good Article status by Vanamonde93 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg As the human reviewer for this article, I found this newly promoted GA article (24 August 2016) is well-written and above the minimum 1500-character limit that is required. There is no clear case of copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. The hook itself is straightforward, compact, and supported by its offline sources. The nominator has also done his/her portion of QPQ. SyFuelIgniteBurned 19:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article: Several reviewers have noted that the film Avatar (2009) shares key narrative features with The Word for World is Forest.[64][65] Specific thematic points of resemblance include a depleted earth, exploitive resource extraction on another planet, natives of that planet living in harmony with a sacred natural world, and a successful revolt by those natives against the exploiting humans.
  • Source: Avatar shares key narrative features with Ursula Le Guin’s 1972 novel The Word for World is Forest, including a depleted earth, exploitive resource extraction on another planet, and a successful revolt by the natives. Natives live in harmony with a natural world that is considered sacred.

- That's a little too similar for mine. I think a rewording is in order. Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm, you're quite right, it's far too close. I think this was the one piece of the article that I didn't write myself, but that's no excuse, really...I'll do this now. Vanamonde (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass: I've rephrased it, take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass: have you had a chance to look at this yet? Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've checked the disputed section and a few other spotchecks throughout, and don't see any further paraphrasing issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

La Hora de la Verdad

Created by MPJ-DK (talk). Self-nominated at 11:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Length Newness Cited hook Interest Sources Neutrality Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

My only issue is whether all "betting matches" are necessarily mask v. mask. The article itself seems to rebuke this, speaking of mask v. hair betting matches. Maybe just leave it as Luchas de Apuestas with a parenthetical note as to the English? It seems like "biggest luchas de apuestas in years" is an even bigger title than "biggest mask v. mask match in years" anyway.Cake (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi MisterCake and thank you for your review. So no they are not all mask/mask - some are mask/hair or hair/hair - but those are less prestigious than mask/mask. I chose the English term but how about this slight rewrite below?  MPJ-DK  11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol voting keep.svg Hi there. With these minor additions, I think it is good to go. Cake (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Reopened (pulled from prep 1), discussed at WT:DYK#Wrestling hook pulled from Prep 1. Basically, there seems to be no evidence that this show is named "La hora de la verdad". Fram (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Per DYK talk page discussion the article has been renamed and the hook updated to match this.  MPJ-DK  23:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is now at AfD; nomination on hold until the AfD has been closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on August 28[edit]

Numayrid dynasty

  • ... that most Numayrid princes, apprehensive of urban life, ruled their cities from their Bedouin camps in the pastures?

Moved to mainspace by Al Ameer son (talk). Self-nominated at 20:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: QPQ done. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)







Articles created/expanded on August 29[edit]

University of Dundee Medical School

University of Dundee Medical School's main site at Ninewells hospital
University of Dundee Medical School's main site at Ninewells hospital

Created by Drchriswilliams (talk) and Alkuusik (talk). Nominated by Drchriswilliams (talk) at 10:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC).


QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg The picture caption does not use the same terminology (name) as the article. Can you please fix it to avoid confusion amongst readers? In view of the update and clarification by nominator, passing this entry for DYK. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@AKS.9955: I have changed the caption. I had originally attempted to include an apostrophe in ALT1 and should check if the removal was intentional. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is ALT0 interesting? These projects often take a decade or more? EEng 19:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I agree with EEng; the hooks are completely uninteresting, so I struck them. Here's another idea:
  • ALT2: ... that The Guardian ranked the University of Dundee Medical School 1st in Scotland in its 2015, 2016, and 2017 university guides?
  • A citation should be provided for the 4 research divisions listed under Research. And it's unclear why the page is called "Medical School" when the lead and infobox call it the "School of Medicine". Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Chasmology

Created by Silver seren (talk). Self-nominated at 01:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 03:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hate to say it, but this article is really about yawning, not the study of yawning. EEng 11:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: I completely disagree. This article follows the format of other "study of" articles. Discussing the main theories involved in the study is routine formatting. Heck, a section directly describing the subject of the field is also common. In this case, that would involve the physiology of yawning. I haven't added that yet, but I can. Look at Endocrinology for an example. And, obviously, the history section of this topic isn't going to have much, since it is a new field. The history is based largely around the research done by the three main people in the field, Olivier Walusinski, Wolter Seuntjens, and Robert Provine. SilverserenC 20:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Endocrinology is a vast and ramified field in which work hundreds of thousands of researchers and specialist practitioners. "Chasmology" is a neologism, coined by this guy Walusinski, not in the OED and producing ten (count 'em -- ten!) hits on Gscholar [10] (one if which is a typo). There's absolutely nothing in the article that wouldn't be completely at home in yawning. Unless you can come up with more sources I'm considering taking it to AfD. EEng 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
EEng, if you aren't going to take this to AfD, then the review needs to continue. Please decide as soon as possible; it's already been over three weeks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Nomination on hold until AfD has concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on August 30[edit]

Il Postino (opera)

After a double-check, the part was written for Plácido Domingo, with Domingo's input--forgot that last part. Domingo truly excelled at the role...

NewMexMike (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Created by NewMexMike (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 22:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 6351 characters
    • ✗ Paragraphs [2] (In ... postman.),[4] (The ... nature.),[6] (Mario ... time.),[8] (At ... others.),[10] (During ... ("Metaphors").),[12] (The ... name.),[14] (Pablo ... payment.),[18] (Beatrice ... room.),[20] (Di ... Cosimo.),[22] (Mario ... advances.),[24] (In ... re-printed.),[26] (Distressed, ... Beatrice.),[28] (Mario ... away.),[30] (Pablo ... Understand").),[32] (Donna ... leaves.),[34] (Alone, ... unsuccessfully.),[36] (Mario ... celebrate.) in this article lack a citation.
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (11.5% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 00:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hey bot, that is a plot, no citations needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Article (New): Green tickY
  • Article (Long enough): Green tickY
  • Article (Within policy): Green tickY The article is essentially a very long plot. I would like some more information on the production and reception to prove notability and provide context.
  • Hook (Format): Green tickY
  • Hook (Content): Symbol possible vote.svg Nominator seems to contradict their own hook in the following line. Please make your hook clear and concise. In addition, make sure the information in the hook is also in the article and properly sourced.
  • QPQ: Green tickY
  • Images: Green tickY One fair use image.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg The article needs to be more than just one long plot. Need more sources to prove notability and show larger context. And the hook's assertion needs to be clearly in the article and properly sourced.--Coin945 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Creating a role" in opera means to perform it in the premiere, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the term you're thinking of is "originated the role". Still, please make sure that content in the hook is properly sourced in the article, and make it more than one long string of plot threads. What historical circumstances led to the play being written? What critical commentary has been written about it? Etc.--Coin945 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The term on Wikipedia is "created the role", you can ask on project opera. - We are not here for a GA review. I am only the nominator who found this interesting, after having seen the film. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)




Articles created/expanded on August 31[edit]

State aid

  • ... that the Republic of Ireland's tax benefits system was judged by the EU to be state aid, and declared Apple would have to pay €13 million in tax as a result?

5x expanded by 77.95.145.6 (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 17:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • My review:
  • Article (New):Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Article (Long enough):Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Article (Within policy): Symbol question.svg I think the article is a little stubby. There's a long quotation in one section, and a few seemingly random examples in another section. I would like to see sections like history etc. Can I have a statement from the nominator about this? Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Hook (Format):Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Hook (Content):Symbol confirmed.svgI prefer Alt 1.
  • QPQ:Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Images:Symbol confirmed.svg N/A

Overall, Symbol question.svg holding off on passing until nominator makes statement about article's lack of scope.--Coin945 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Very nice expansion. I'm happy to promote this. :D Symbol confirmed.svg--Coin945 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from q3 as it has too many problems. I had to fix three errors just in the hook and one in the article, but reading the rest of the article, it looks like there are further mistatements and grammatical errors. I suggest the nominator find somebody conversant in legal matters to look this nomination over before submitting it again. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BTW, I got as far as making several corrections to the hook, so I might as well add the amended hook here:
  • ... that the EU judged the Republic of Ireland's tax benefits to Apple to be an illegal form of state aid, and declared that the company would have to pay €13 billion in back tax as a result? Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Gato, I happen to have studied law and I am not quite sure what your concern is. To me, it reads as close to the sources without being too technical. I'll ask @Coin945: to have another look over and see if the proposed amended hook is acceptable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, in retrospect, Gatoclass' amendment to the hook makes much more sense. I have not studied law so I assumed in good faith that it was phrased correctly. But the amended version makes a clear link between the Rep. of Ireland --> Apple, and why Apple had to pay all that money ("illegal" state aid), and that it is the EU NOT Ireland that make the decision. This does however make me cast doubts on the article itself. The 9 sources used appear to be third-party and reliable. it could have a copyedit to tighten up all the paragraphs and make everything a little clearer - for instance after reading the introduction I still have no idea what State Aid actually is. Although the article explains this in the actual body. This is all I can really say without a law background. I recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Law to review it.--Coin945 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)




Wash's Restaurant

Wash & Sons' Seafood Restaurant
Wash & Sons' Seafood Restaurant

Created by Yoninah (talk). Self-nominated at 21:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Thanks for the tweak, Edwardx, but to my ear "all" and "each" sounds strange in the same sentence. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Good point, Yoninah. I've moved "all" and "each" - is that any better? Edwardx (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, @Edwardx: I like ALT1a much better. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • DYK review:
  • YesY New enough (created & nominated on 31 August), long enough (7787 characters), and within policy.
  • YesY Agree with the above discussion that ALT1a is the best hook. ALT1a is short enough, interesting, and supported by [11].
  • YesY QPQ done.
  • YesY Image is free, used in article, and looks good at low resolution.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 15:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I removed this from p2 because I couldn't confirm the hook - it says children, grandchildren and in-laws were all paid $35 a week but the source only mentions two children who were paid that wage. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No I don't think that is specific enough Yoninah, and with regard to the other hook, I haven't seen a source that says they sold soul food for the full 70 years of the business' existence. So I'm thinking a new hook will be required. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah, could you give me a quote from the source regarding the beach-goers? The reference cites page 83 but the source doesn't have page numbers on it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the line from Chapter 10:

The morning may have started out slow, but by now Wash and Sons' was packed with couples, singles and families trying to get in a hearty meal before a day at the beach and boardwalk.

  • Symbol confirmed.svg All good now, thanks for your patience. I have been very much enjoying your recent series on clubs and restaurants BTW :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


English invasion of Scotland (1400)

Created by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbol voting keep.svg Okay I rechecked to make sure that bot's review is accurate and it is. The article is newly created and is of acceptable length - so is the hook. This does not reveal any sign of copyvio. QPQ not needed since it's the nominator's second nom and thus is exempt from it. The hook is sourced in the article by a source that does not seem to be available online (so assuming good faith). FrB.TG (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, lots of cites, no copyvio and no QPQ needed. Good to go. Articles like these are precisely why I do DYK, so I can read material like this that I would otherwise never come across. I took the liberty of making some whitespace additions to break up longish paragraphs, and expanded the lede to consider the entire article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Maury Markowitz very kind words and some nice sub-editing, v.g. As opposed to dumbassery. For which, see below  :D Muffled Pocketed 07:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I don't think this hook will do because it is misleading, implying as it does that it was the absence of the king's tents which caused the delay. Can I suggest instead
"Clever" hooks like this one have a long and glorified history here in DYK. The statement is factually correct as it is, he did wait until his tents arrived, and it certainly makes it hookier. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Cybergeddon (film)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 06:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 07:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg With QPQ concluded, everything else is good to go. Hook is cited as "three times" if you're looking for it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg I think this hook will not do. The source supporting the hook compares the cost of Cybergeddon to that of Electric City, but does not state that that was previously the most expensive web series. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does. It specifically states that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Please point me to the sentence where this is specifically stated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
"At $6 million, Cybergeddon is the most expensive Web series of all time, topping the roughly $2 million spent on Tom Hanks’ Electric City." essentially states that Electric City was the prior record holder.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that before. It may imply but does not state that Electric City was the prior most expensive series. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It sure as hell implies it and that's what I take it to say, as would the "common man" I suspect. I say the hook is fine.. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a ridiculous objection. When you report that something has set a new record and surpassed another thing, that other thing is presumed to be the prior record holder.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Reads Landing School

Reads Landing School in 2016
Reads Landing School in 2016

Created by McGhiever (talk). Nominated by Jonathunder (talk) at 00:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg @Jonathunder: New enough, long enough. The hook is interesting and backed up by the NRHP nomination form which notes the eccentricity of this feature in the building, and it features good photography too. This would be fully approved but a QPQ is necessary first. Ping me when you've reviewed another nomination. Raymie (t • c) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 1[edit]

Edward Iacobucci

Edward Iacobucci
Edward Iacobucci

Moved to mainspace by Patar knight (talk). Self-nominated at 15:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

  • ALT1 is classic example of a hook failing the "interesting" test. EEng 07:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and appears not to contain close paraphrasing and the image is appropriately licensed. However, the hook facts are supported in the article by a source that does not even mention his father as far as I can see. Assuming you can find a more suitable source, can I suggest ALT2
Much better, IMO. EEng 06:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the sourcing. Would like to see Frank Iacobucci in the hook, so maybe:
would work? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Even better, I think. EEng 05:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg for the hooks left, following the review above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


The Mutants (musical collaboration)

  • ... that the band The Mutants developed from the idea of an album set out to retrace the roots of punk, new wave and ska, featuring an all-star cast of punk musicians?

Created by Yarikata (talk). Self-nominated at 17:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC).


Hale v. Henkel

Created by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment: the high Copyvio percentage comes from the quotes I used for the "Key Excerpts" section. Ignoring those, there's no Copyvio issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The freedom.com website is absolutely not an RS. ALT0 depended on it -- didn't check the others. EEng 07:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Found replacement sources for all sections. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the one you found for ALT0 is another crackpot antigovernment website. EEng 19:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I've looked at the other sources and I'm afraid I've had to remove one or two more on the same basis. I'm really sorry for this, and hope you can find replacement sources. I'm not even sure that unsigned articles on the law360 site can be considered reliable for anything but routine background. EEng 21:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, which should include making sure all sources are reliable. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. I believe the sources cited are sufficiently reliable for the purposes they are used. Approving ALT1 which is the simplest and most straightforward of the proposed hooks. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I am striking ALT4 because Hale did not discuss free speech or religious freedoms. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The vulture and the little girl

  • ...that in 1993, Kevin Carter clicked photo of a famine-stricken African toddler while a vulture lurked her so that it can eat her. Fate of the child still unknown & Carter committed suicide in 1994?

Created by AKS.9955 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment for bot review: All paragraphs are properly cited. Why bot reported lack of citation was the use of quotes. Two citations are provided at the end of quote. There is no copyright violation since the possible violation reported is the quotation, which is presented verbatim. As far as the picture is concerned, human review is required if the DYK can be counted as "another article". Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Hook makes little sense, and the article needs significant copyediting too. Edwardx (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply. Edwardx I think the hook is very clear and self-explanatory. Please suggest ALT 1 if you are not clear with the hook. Also, why copyedit? Whats wrong with the prose? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Edwardx, are you reviewing this DYK or just made an observation? Please clarify because another reviewer will not review this DYK assuming you are reviewing this entry. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just commenting. ALT1 added. Edwardx (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestion. Since this was just a comment, full review of this DYK has to be done by another user. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Copyedited ALT1, and struck ALT0 as unintelligible. EEng 07:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks E, are you reviewing this DYK? If yes then is there anything else that needs to be done? What is the status of this DYK, pass of hold? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, like EdwardX I'm just passing through. Be patient -- reviews sometimes take weeks. EEng 07:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by human reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image has a fair use rationale and I believe that precludes it from appearing on the front page. ALT1 is cited inline, and I have added ALT1b so as to better relate the date of the suicide to the incident. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The article does not currently need copyediting in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There is close paraphrasing from several sources.
  • Source: Carter said he waited about 20 minutes, hoping that the vulture would spread its wings.
  • Article: waited for 20 minutes hoping that the vulture would spread its wings
  • Source: (The parents of the girl were busy taking food from the same UN plane Carter took to Ayod).
  • Article: The parents of the girl were busy taking food from the same United Nations plane on which Carter had flown into Ayod.
  • Source: editor's note saying the girl had enough strength to walk away from the vulture, but that her ultimate fate was unknown.
  • Article: in which the editor mentioned that although the girl had had enough strength to walk away from the vulture, her ultimate fate was unknown
  • Source: Carter came under criticism for not helping the girl.
  • Article: Carter came under criticism for not helping the child
  • Source: To get the two in focus, Carter approached the scene very slowly so as not to scare the vulture away
  • Article: To get both into the focus and not to scare the vulture, Carter approached the scene very slowly
  • Source: Carter estimated that there were twenty people per hour dying at the food center. The child was not unique.
  • Article: Carter had also estimated that people were dying at the rate of twenty per hour at the food center and that the girl and her condition were not unique.
  • Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)



Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 15:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment by nominator: Two links to article added in response to the orphan tag.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on September 2[edit]

My Kind of Girl

  • ... that the original version of My Kind of Girl came second in ITV's "A Song for Britain"?

Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 16:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

South Africa Red Ensign

The South Africa Red Ensign
The South Africa Red Ensign
  • ... that the South Africa Red Ensign (pictured) was unofficial as South Africa's national flag but took 3 years of negotiations to officially replace?

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Bhalchandra Dattatray Mondhe

Created by Lourdes (talk). Self-nominated at 11:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by human reviewer now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook has inline citations and is acceptable, the article is neutral, and I detected no policy issues. The original hook seems to imply he was responsible for reviving the lake singlehandedly whereas, as I understand it, he co-founded The Nature Volunteers Club, and worked with two other people to improve the lake environment, so I suggest we go with ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Cwmhiraeth thank you. Yes, you are right in the view of the original hook. I had not realized the perspective. Thanks for the passing. Lourdes 17:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)



Articles created/expanded on September 3[edit]

Florida gubernatorial election, 1970

5x expanded by 12george1 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article has been expanded from 831 chars to 4647 chars since 18:27, 03 November 2015 (UTC), a 5.59-fold expansion
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 4647 characters
    • ✗ Paragraphs [7] (On ... 1990.) in this article lack a citation.
    • ✗ This article has the following issues:
    • ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 22.5% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • Symbol question.svg Some overall issues detected
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 169 characters
    • ✗ 12george1 has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review is required for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 00:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review by human reviewer needed now that QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg QPQ has been provided and the hook fact is correctly sourced to a reliable source ([12]), but I feel that It would be good if page numbers are also mentioned where-ever this source is used, you could use {{Sfn}}. The last line about Lawton Chiles also needs a citation. I don't think there are any copyright issues as the bot is reporting. The hook is interesting enough. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've dealt with both issues.--12george1 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Proton radius puzzle

Created by Silver seren (talk). Self-nominated at 22:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 00:29, 03 September 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2965 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (6.5% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg The article and the hook meet DYK criteria, the article is well documented, the hook is interesting and referenced with reliable sources. Yarikata (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yarikata, your review doesn't mention checking for close paraphrasing/copyvio or for neutrality, both important DYK criteria; can you please conduct those checks? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In the cases of the articles that are available on-line there are no copyvio issues. For the others that would require purchase I assume good faith, considering the information included in the abstracts available online and that the parts referenced in the Wikipedia page are short and rendered explicitly as one sentence abstracts of the thesis developed in the respective articles. As for neutrality, the text draws information from a variety of reliable sources, and the information in these sources is to some extent interconnected to give an idea of the general consensus on this topic at this moment in the scientific world. The creator of this Wikipedia article followed the spirit of the sources, with no perceptible undue importance for specific aspects. Yarikata (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Yarikata, for doing the checks. I have removed my "?" icon from my comment, so your approval tick again holds sway. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have removed this per discussion at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)



Gösta Peterson

Created by Yorkshiresky (talk). Self-nominated at 14:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 14:00, 03 September 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 3256 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (11.5% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 15:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg The hook is good, neutral, supported by a good reference, but the article isn't as neutral as it could be. "He worked prodigiously" / "His work was groundbreaking in that he would often use models " is lavish praise. Stick to the facts. He worked a lot, sure. Prodigiously? Groundbreaking? Either give a source for this opinion, or rephrase those sentences. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've updated the refs/wording as per your review. Thanks. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg All clear now. Support main proposal over ALT1.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Headbomb, your review does not cover the important copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism DYK criteria. Can you please check this as well? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset I've seen nothing that struck me as a unacceptably close paraphrasing/plagiarism. Some things are worded similarly e.g. "Peterson was born in Stockholm in 1923 and grew up in Örebro, before returning to Stockholm where he studied to become an illustrator." [Wikipedia] vs "Born in Stockholm in 1923, Peterson grew up in Örebro, a city in the heart of Sweden, later returning to Stockholm to study and work as an illustrator for an ad agency" but there's not 247 ways to say this information and no one, I feel, would think this is plagiarism. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Restoring Headbomb's tick per said reviewer's check of the article against the copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism criterion. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Pulled from hook and discussion reopened per WT:DYK#First photograph (prep 6). Hook was sourced but clearly incorrect. Fram (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Striking original hook; article will need to be updated per the above discussion. Are there any issues with ALT1? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 4[edit]

Severn Railway Bridge

Severn Railway Bridge after the 1960 accident
Severn Railway Bridge after the 1960 accident
  • ... that the Severn Railway Bridge (pictured after accident) was demolished after two barges hit it in 1960?

Improved to Good Article status by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

  • @EEng: If you wish to add an alternative hook, please do so, but do not change my grammatical hook into your non-grammatical one. You are usually so careful about wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I merely asked (via my edit summary) what's ungrammatical (as you said) about "was demolished after two barges hit in 1960". In fact, how is it different at all vs. the original wording "was demolished after two barges collided with it in 1960", other than being a bit punchier? That's all. EEng 07:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
"Hit" is a transitive verb and in your hook, has no object. It may sound OK in American English but it sounds wrong in British English. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake. "Hit it in" -- my eye just jumped over it. Nothing to do with American English. You could have just fixed it without all this harrumphing. EEng 07:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I preferred the word "collided", but as a general principle, I think you should add your version as an ALT rather than merely substituting it for the original with no comment visible on the template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I copyedit hooks all the time in place, and very, very seldom does anyone mind (though I frequently receive thanks and praise). Those interested are presumably watching and can push back if they dislike what I've done. In this case things were confused by my unfortunate loss of the it, but now that that's sorted out, we're back where we'd have been had I not messed up the suggested change in the first place i.e. feel free, if you wish, to revert the change with the edit summary, "I prefer the original wording". I won't mind -- it was just suggestion. EEng 08:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That's OK, I don't in the least object to your hook in its present form. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Good. I think hit has more punch, if you get my drift. BTW, and hate to say it, but the image is so small it's impossible to see the missing section. EEng 17:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook is set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Alberto Pla y Rubio

Monochrome reproduction of Pla's 1895 work ¡A la guerra!
Monochrome reproduction of Pla's 1895 work ¡A la guerra!
  • Comment: Image of 1895 painting made in 1900, so still public domain

Created by Ubiquity (talk). Self-nominated at 18:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg At the moment, this article is too short to qualify for DYK. It needs to be at least 1500 characters long and at the moment it is 1029 characters. Can you find some more information to add? Also, you seem to have at least five previous DYK nominations and will need to do a QPQ review of another nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth:
  • The length problem may be a deal-breaker, unfortunately. I will see what I can do, but I've almost exhausted my store of knowledge on the subject. Now that the nomination has been made, how much time do I have to make changes? Also, is there a tool I can use to find out what the count actually is by DYK standards? I assume it's not counting infoboxes, external links, citations, etc, but it would be useful to be able to know before I resubmit.
  • In my most recent DYK nomination, the automatic review said it would be three more DYKs before I needed to do a QPQ. Can you show me how you counted 5?
Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I found one recent DYK and four more in one of your talk page archives (Archive2?). As for the character count, I have a tool on my sidebar called "page size", but I don't remember quite how I acquired it, though I think it was through the preferences tab at the top of the page. I think that you could have a week or two to get the article to a sufficient length. Would this be of any help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Honors (horse)

  • ... that Honors is a horse that "has it all"?
  • Reviewed: K. R. T. Girls

Created by White Arabian Filly (talk). Self-nominated at 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

Big Sur Folk Festival

  • QPQ reviewed Ypresiosirex
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: The article may appear to have a copyvio issue with the list of concerts and artistst that appeared. I cannot conceive of a way to list them differently. The only alternative is to remove that list.

Created by Btphelps (talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC).



Articles created/expanded on September 5[edit]

Uruguayan dyke swarms

Created by Mamayuco (talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Dyke swarms? Does Anita Bryant know about this??? Oh, wait...
ALT1 ... that swarms of dykes have intruded into Uruguay?
EEng 19:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

Barbara Thoman Curtis

Created by MWright96 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC).



Jeff Chandler (footballer)

5x expanded by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 15:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Why is ALT0 or ALT1 interesting? Lots of athletes take up jobs in retirement, sometimes involving coaching or youth counseling or such. And lots of athletes' careers start after a teacher or coach recommends them. EEng 19:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: Well it's the first former footballer I know of that has worked as a youth counselor. But if they're not interesting enough, I've added another alt that is a bit more interesting. Kosack (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Google retired football youth counselor. Look, I'm kind of in a pissy mood so please take that into account, but how remarkable is it that a former player, or son of a former player, might put in a word for a promising young player? EEng 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: The counselor role was notable enough for the newspaper source in the article to run a story on it. With ALT2, I was going more for the fact that Johnston is an all-time great of the club rather than just a former player. Kosack (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but it wasn't him, it was his son. And the story wasn't about his counseling work, it just mentions it briefly in passing. I'm trying to get you to find something actually interesting about his subject -- something you'd actually relate to someone else over dinner without that person saying, "So what?" EEng 20:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: The fact he is the son of Johnston is what makes it noteworthy in the first place, especially considering more than one of the sources makes reference to the situation. If he wasn't the son of a famous footballer it wouldn't have been mentioned. The newspaper article itself is titled "Chandler keeping kids on track" so it's not a footnote in the article, even if the newspaper covers his whole career and not just his current job. I'll admit there's nothing that literally jumps out of the page on this article but there's enough to be considered interesting to some. Kosack (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Look, lots of stuff gets mentioned in sources that isn't even worth putting in our article, not to mention on the main page. That "considered interesting to some" is the standard to meet is the reason DYK is so full of stuff no one clicks on. Remember, I said I'm in a pissy mood. EEng 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The current main hook with image on the front page can be basically condensed to "four people are competing in the Paralympics" which, in my opinion, can barely be considered a hook. Yet I have found three hooks on a subject that, although perhaps not hugely gripping to some, are hooks nonetheless. What is interesting and what is not is a massively subjective notion. Kosack (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Complete agree about the main-page hook you mention. And most of what editors do here at WP is subjective. EEng 22:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
And your point is? So because you're on your own personal vendetta with DYK, this hook is considered unworthy as tens of other considerably weaker hooks will be approved in the meantime? Kosack (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Please, just come up with someone that will actually make the reader perk up. EEng 03:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, subjective.... Kosack (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If it weren't, then robots instead of humans would do all the editing. Anyway, please do your best. EEng 07:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This is where people get confused about hook value. "four people are competing in the Paralympics" may not look like a catchy hook, but if it's run while the Paralympics are still on, it will easily get over 1,000 page views. The key is reader interest, not just cleverness. Hawkeye7 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Ypresiosirex

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 19:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC). Article is:

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, created on September 5, 2016.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough, 2910 characters
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Neutral.

Hook format and content is:

  • Symbol confirmed.svg OK, assuming named source is accurate.

Other:

  • Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ

Comments: Please assign categories to the article. Suggest breaking up the long paragraphs into more readable, shorter paragraphs.

  • @Btphelps: Categories have been added. The paragraphs are in line with other articles on extinct taxa.--Kevmin § 00:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This review is incredibly confusing, with ticks being given out wholesale, and no reviewer signature. Reviewer: please only give one summary icon at the bottom of the review indicating its overall DYK status, and be sure to review all criteria; for example, you have not mentioned having done a check for close paraphrasing/copyvio, nor is there any mention of overall article sourcing. Is there any reason to suspect that the hook sourcing might not be reliable? Finally, since there are two hooks, you need to review them both, and be sure to mention which are approved. (Among other criteria, hooks also need to be interesting.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's been sometime since I reviewed a DYK nom. I'm sorry my review was not more detailed and that I forgot to add a sig.
  • Copyvio checked. No problems found.
  • The first hook is not supported by the article.
  • The second hook is a little short and lacks some zing. I suggest the following:
...that the extinct sawfly Ypresiosirex orthosemos was described from a single fossil found in the McAbee Fossil Beds near Cache Creek, British Columbia?
  • The source for the second hook is a scientific article that is not accessible without a subscription, but which has been cited by numerous other articles, lending credibility to its veracity.
— btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Btphelps: The first hook is supported by the article, specifically the etymology section of the type description.--Kevmin § 03:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Bratton Downs

5x expanded by Casliber (talk). Self-nominated at 15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • A little over the minimum length; 5x expansion from microstub confirmed by DYKcheck. Hook is concise, hooky in an Easter-egg-ish fashion and also interesting, appears in article, and is supported by a reliable reference. Article is neutral and appears free from copyright/close paraphrasing problems. I do have some concerns... It could do with broadening out to cover the topic fully, eg "notable geological features" are not further elucidated. The biological features could also be expanded; eg no mention is made of the ancient broad-leaved woodland. First paragraph needs citing to the SSSI description. More info linked here: [13] including some mapping which shows what geographical features are included. There are only 2 refs and nearly all of the article pends off just one of them, though it's reliable. Not a DYK issue, but the image in the article has no caption and very limited encyclopedic value. There are more free images at Geograph including a few showing grassland which might be within/near the correct area, eg [14],[15]. QPQ completed. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict:, the geological stuff is highly technical and I can't get my head around some of it, so just clarified a bit. Agree about the photo and a need for a better one. One of the vistas of the White Horse plus surrounds would be better I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I've added a little more on location & ancient woodland (quite a big deal in the UK). On closer inspection of the map the white horse appears to fall within the SSSI area so a photo of that would be appropriate. There might now be room for another, if anything on Geograph falls within the area; I'll take a quick look. Agree about the geological info -- I wish I knew what escarpment fluates are (a typo? fluoride-rich slopes?). Anyway, I think this is now good to go, as the image is not a DYK requirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, I think, since (unless you're a bird watcher) fritillaries sounds naughty. But you're welcome to strike this one if you like ALT0 better. EEng 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm obviously unsalvageably literal, as it doesn't sound naughty to me? If it is decided to go with this alternative, then some means of linking to the butterfly fritillary, as opposed to the bulb, needs to be found but there doesn't seem to be a single page. Paging @Casliber: for an opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Analogy: ALT1 at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Henry_Michell_Wagner. EEng 21:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It does sound funny. Big question is it factual...and we are undermined by a sole preposition. We could have an "and" but not a "with" as it starts to veer away from factual (sadly). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Y'all are welcome to use my idea any way you want. Just don't shoot yourself in the twitten. EEng 01:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You should check where your wikilinks end up! And surely it should be "on" Bratton Downs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed in to on. What's wrong with the links? And stop calling me Shirley. EEng 07:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote above, one problem with using the fritillaries in the hook is that there doesn't seem to be an article on fritillary the butterfly (as opposed to the bulb). Agree with Cwmhiraeth that "on" is preferable, in both this and the original hook. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The best link I can find is Argynnini or Nymphalidae, but neither is perfect, and according to its article, the Duke of Burgundy is also a fritillary, albeit not a true one! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Iris cedreti

  • ... that ....?
  • ALT1:is considered critically endangered due the building of ski resorts on Lebanon's mountains

Created/expanded by DavidAnstiss (talk). Self-nominated at 07:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

Size, date of moving to mainspace, long enough, well referenced, neutrality, all good. The article is broken into too many one sentence sections and paragraphs.
Sampling the footnotes finds no copyright or plagiarism. CWH (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
QPQ: Probably OK: according to User talk:DavidAnstiss, the author has had only two DYK accepted, but will ask him to confirm.
I have had 3 DYK's nominations which were all were successful ! Iris perrieri, Iris timofejewii and Iris atrofusca DavidAnstiss (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Good! Just wanted to be sure...

Symbol confirmed.svg:: ALT2 ... that ski resort construction in Lebanon's mountains has critically endangered the rare iris cedreti? CWH (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hook #2 better: uses active voice, includes article name, and the source cited does not say that the species is "critically" endangered. CWH (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
IUCN source of critically endangered- http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/201657/0 (hence used in infobox) DavidAnstiss (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg I added "critically" to Hook #2. Good to go! CWH (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but the article is largely a series of one-sentence paragraphs peppered with numbers. Is there any way to make this read more smoothly and organized into paragraphs? Perhaps you could refer to other iris articles. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, Yoninah -- I misunderstood. I didn't see in the list of DYK qualifications that the article had to be of a certain quality, only not a stub. I of course defer to your judgment.ch (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah My finding was that the article was ready to go, and I deferred to your judgment even though I do not see in the DYK qualifications that the article had to be anything more than a stub. Did I misunderstand? Is there such a requirment? ch (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Divisional Railway Hospital, Golden Rock

Created by Balablitz (talk). Self-nominated at 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment Review under way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Review Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, timely nominated. Nominator has one DYK so no QPQ required. No image involved. No close paraphrasing or WP:Copyvio. Earwig is clear.
The link to one of the hook facts (concerning the zonal hospital) is not working, so I could not verify it. In any event, I think the hook is not very interesting, and as phrased ("the oldest one" – which? what?) is muddled. The phrase "much before" is WP:Peacock phrasing considering the temporal span is a few months. IMO, we need a better hook. I also have a concern that one of the figures (1,000,000) used in the article may be wrong, and could not verify it. The figure had an odd configuration as originally put into the article ("1,00,000"), so that needs to be verified. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Review Symbol question.svg All issues above addressed. Every paragraph and hook are properly cited. However, the hook is still poorly worded. IMO
Would be better said as: "* ... that the oldest Railway hospital was established in 1927 before the zonal hospital?" IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
*ALT1: "* ... that the oldest Railway hospital was established in 1927 before the zonal hospital?"
*ALT2: "* ... that the oldest Railway hospital was established in 1927 by then South Indian Railway Company?"
Any thoughts? --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 and ALT2 are referenced, cited, and GTG. Hooks are neutral and short. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Pulled from Prep6 after discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 6. Hook as written is not correct. Fram (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Fram Still is the oldest Indian railway divisional hospital and that continues to be sourced. If the source is wrong I wouldn't know, and you might want to give us some guidance in that regard. If you have another hook, propose it. There was no issue with the WP:QPQ. Nominator had one prior WP:DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Not only did the hook say nothing about first "Indian" Railway Hospital, before 1927 there were Railway Hospitals in e.g. Kharagpur, Bhusavai and Lallaguda. Fram (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • See e.g. Winifred Spicer, who received the 1925 Kaiser-I-hind Medal for her work at the Ajmer Railway Hospital.[16] Fram (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
ALT 3 has 115 184 characters.
The hook facts continue to be sourced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
ALT 4 has 97 102 characters and was suggested by User: Gatoclass. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. Either ALT3 or ALT4 could be used as both are referenced inline. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 6[edit]

Sambor Ghetto

Alojzy with Ruth
Alojzy with Ruth

Created by Poeticbent (talk). Self-nominated at 09:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC).


Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)

  • ... that in the late fourteenth century, Humphrey Stafford—possibly because of what one historian has termed "a bellicose engagement"—used a prosthetic hand made of silver?
  • Comment: Created in my draft space 29 September 2016, moved to main space 3 September 2016.

Created by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 10:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 12:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done Muffled Pocketed 12:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that when he source says he's "of the silver hand", that may be poetical e.g. a silver-colored steel gauntlet or something. EEng 13:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I read it as the primary source telling us that he was 'of the silver hand’- but the secondary source that it was 'apparently because of his use of an artificial limb after losing one of his own in a bellicose engagement.' Muffled Pocketed 07:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
But the 2ndary source's use of quotes indicates distancing. It's just not clear the prosthesis was actually made of silver (cf. silver-colored). Is there any other source we can look to? EEng 08:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The quotes indicate a quote, surely. Muffled Pocketed 13:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
When a source uses quotes where it would be more natural to simply state the information directly, it implies that he/she isn't sure what to make of the quoted material. And stop calling me Shirley. EEng 14:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I've expanded the article a bit on the silveryness or otherwise of the limb. Muffled Pocketed 19:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope you won't think I'm being difficult, but I'm still not seeing anything clearly telling us that the hand thingamajig was actually silver. Auric Goldfinger didn't have a gold finger, after all -- at least, I don't think so. Try this:
  • ALT1 ... that Humphrey Stafford was called "Stafford of the silver hand" because of a prosthesis he wore after a "bellicose engagement"?
EEng 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Seattle Times Building

Moved to mainspace by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 05:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Lots of papers have changed headquarters a few times, so why is ALT0 interesting? May I suggest the punchier
ALT3:...that the Seattle Times Building was called a "death trap"?
EEng 19:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Breakaway (video game)

  • Comment: This is DYKN #2. I think this article qualifies as "new" given that I moved it from draftspace today. Otherwise, I'm sitting right around the 5x expansion required for something which had been in mainspace for a while.

Created by Izno (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

Bayit Lepletot

  • ... that one of the campuses of the Bayit Lepletot orphanage for girls in Jerusalem includes a museum of Jewish art?

Created by Yoninah (talk). Self-nominated at 21:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, long enough and within policy regarding neutrality, sources and avoidance of close paraphrasing. The hooks are within length, interesting and sourced; my preference is ALT1a. QPQ has been met. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

De laude Cestrie

  • ... that the 12th-century manuscript De laude Cestrie is one of the earliest prose works about an English town?
  • Reviewed: Jessica Pierce
  • Comment: Moved to mainspace, after languishing in my sandbox forgotten for months, on 6 September 2016.

Moved to mainspace by Espresso Addict (talk). Self-nominated at 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Supporting quotation: "Written ca. 1195 ... Lucian's De laude Cestrie represents one of the earliest English instances of urban descriptio." [Barrett 2009, p. 29]. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Tank steering systems

Porsche's Tiger entry, VK4501
Porsche's Tiger entry, VK4501

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 19:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New London Union Station

New London Union Station in 2012
New London Union Station in 2012

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


Marlowe Memorial

Edward Onslow Ford's The Muse of Poetry
Edward Onslow Ford's The Muse of Poetry

Created by Tagishsimon (talk). Self-nominated at 17:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Tagishsimon: Date and length fine. However Canterbury Buttermarket isn't mentioned in the main body of the article. Also, I'm not quite seeing the outrage to the extent that the hook implies in the article either beyond a few complaints (though in conservative Kent at that time, I wouldn't be surprised). Just want to check is it meant for April Fools Day, just so I know before the no-fun police here potentially challenge it? Also the image used here isn't in the article. If you can fix these issues, i'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this, @The C of E:. 1. Buttermarket is mentioned in the body (line 1, second para in the Memorial section. 2. Outrage. yes. I parleyed "some objections were raised to the statue's dishabille, especially so near the Cathedral" into that word. We might change the hook to "the the objection of citizens", were we unhappy? (And I've done this, for now.) 3. April fool? Was not my intention; I was more after a sort of WTF clickbait. I'm unfamiliar with the levels of misery exercised at DYK, so leave such decisions to others. 4. Image - agreed. It's IMO a more apppropriate image for the smaller image size which is used in DYK, and it it still Kitty. If there's a need to limit ourselves to a single image, then we can use the one in the article - File:Edward Onslow Ford (1852-1901) - The Muse of Poetry (1891) left, Marlowe Memorial nr Marlowe Theatre, The Friars, Canterbury, UK, October 2012 (8111622455).png - but ... even the aspect ratio of that concerns me for DYK. There you go: please let me have the benefit of your experience on these matters some more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thank you for clarifying. I have got no problem with the hook as it is, I'm just saying if I approve it just be aware of the no-fun brigade possibly passing comment. I have just noticed here that you have got 5 DYK credits so you will need to now do a QPQ before I can pass this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Oxford Blue (cheese)

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed per the above. See the alt below. North America1000 07:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC
  • ALT1: ... that in 2013, the production of Oxford Blue cheese created around 50,000 litres of waste whey per month, which was processed using an anaerobic digester?

In Arcadia Ego

Moved to mainspace by Grapple X (talk). Self-nominated at 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 12:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Newly created and long enough. Neutral, balanced with good references. However, the hook is boring – it does not "hook" my attention and requires carefully reading the article to figure out what it even means. Is it possible to suggest something...hookier? Citobun (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There's not really much to go on other than quotes from critics, to be fair, and I figured something neutral would be better than highlighting one of its negative reviews. GRAPPLE X 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Capital Combat

5x expanded by MPJ-DK (talk). Self-nominated at 02:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Min Yaza of Wun Zin

  • ... that Chief Minister Min Yaza of Ava is attributed to have written the 15th century Burmese court treatise Zabu Kun-Cha?

Created by Hybernator (talk). Self-nominated at 18:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on September 7[edit]

Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott, Op. 27

  • Reviewed: WWT Slimbridge
  • Comment: would be best on Reformation Day 31 October, if that wasn't Halloween

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and is unlikely to have copyright or plagiarism issues. There are several sentences in the article that are relevant to the hook - "Reger wrote the works for Karl Straube", "... premiered several of his works from the manuscript" and "... Karl Straube, who played the first performance in Wesel on 20 September 1898." However, the article does not state whether this premier was "from the manuscript". I suspect that the answer lies in the meaning of the phrase "from the manuscript", and if so, please define it here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
manuscript is a different added fact, supported by publicataion after the day of the premiere. I remember that one source mentions that Straube played most of the fantasias from manuscript, but have no time to check where that was, - pleasantly away, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say that if a work is performed before it has been published (ie put into print) then it must have been "from the manuscript", or would this deduction be an example of the kind of OR that Fram thinks I engage in? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like OR to me. It could have been hand-copied so that Reger had the original and Straube had a clean copy. In fact, there's no guarantee that the publisher got the original manuscript; there's a good chance that a clean copy was made, especially if the original had corrections on it (as can often happen). BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: What you say brings me back to my original question - does "from the manuscript" have a specific definition that I don't know? Gerda offers another hook below, but would it be better to substitute the last three words by "before it was published"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I've just checked, and apparently, for music, "manuscript" means handwritten as opposed to printed. However, "the manuscript" to me implies that there's just one (thus the original rather than a copy), so I'd use "a manuscript". Since the work wasn't published for another six months and had been completed days or a couple of weeks before the concert, it would have had to have been performed from manuscript, unless Straube had time to memorize it. (The organists I know all play from music, not from memory, but I don't know whether this guarantees that Straube didn't memorize it.) The article does note that the piece was the "first work by Reger to find success with the public", which I think could be more interesting than performing from manuscript, something that was typical at the time when premiering a work. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I may have a language problem, is this better:
Another hook, as suggested by BlueMoonset:
If we go that line, how about shorter:
ALT3 ... that Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott, Op. 27, a chorale fantasia for organ, was Max Reger's first work to find success with the public?
Any more Halloweenish hook, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

bioRxiv

Created by Headbomb (talk). Self-nominated at 18:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, long enough and within policy regarding neutrality, sourcing and lack of close paraphrasing / copyvio issues. Earwig does detect a violation, which is related to a list of categories covered by the site, and is not reflected in the text of the article. The hook is within length, interesting and properly sourced. QPQ obligation has been met. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Astrodatabank

An entry page displaying, birth details.
An entry page displaying, birth details.

Created by Junosoon (talk). Self-nominated at 04:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

  • My review below.
  • Article (New): Symbol delete vote.svg Nominated more the 7 days after created, and has not been expanded 5 times after that time
  • Article (Long enough): Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Article (Within policy): Symbol question.svg I checked many sources, and it's a mixture of trivial mentions, user comments, or other questionable sources. I'm not convinced that this site is notable because of the source puffery.
  • Hook (Format):Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Hook (Content):Symbol confirmed.svg
  • QPQ:Symbol question.svg
  • Images:Symbol confirmed.svg One image; Wikipedia Commons.

Overall: Symbol delete vote.svg Article is sadly ineligible as it was nominated over 7 days after it was created. Even then, I am doubtful as to the subject's notability.--Coin945 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Coin945, the article counts as new as of the date it was moved from Draft space to mainspace, September 7, so it was clearly new as of the date it was nominated, September 10. Please revisit your review since this was your primary basis for failing it, though it's clear there are other issues. Also, when you do your DYK reviews, please only use a single icon to summarize your final conclusion; the icons are not supposed to be used for individual criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahh gotcha. I was going by the first revision in the revision history, but you're right. The article was in draftspace until September 7th! I'll revise my review below. (That's a shame. I think using the icons for individual criteria is very handy. I'll try to avoid it in the future).
  • Article (New): Symbol confirmed.svg Moved to Mainspace on September 7th. Fine.
  • Article (Long enough): Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Article (Within policy): Symbol question.svg I checked many sources, and it's a mixture of trivial mentions, user comments, or other questionable sources. I'm not convinced that this site is notable because of the source puffery.
  • Hook (Format):Symbol confirmed.svg
  • Hook (Content):Symbol confirmed.svg
  • QPQ:Symbol question.svg
  • Images:Symbol confirmed.svg One image; Wikipedia Commons.

Overall: Symbol question.svg. I am not wholly convinced on this subject's notability. I would like the nominator to make a statement about this before I accept the article in good faith. As mentioned, many of the sources in the article are unsatisfactory in proving the topic's notability. Oh, and please complete a QPQ. :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for review, regarding sources , as you pointed, all the references, are made , so that text of article can be verified, so please note it not just the mention of title in sources or referencing, but they refer the importance and significance of subject.Please view, the revision history of article when it was accepted on September 7th.Junosoon (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment QPQ is done, Reviewed, Dick Cresswell. Junosoon (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry @Junosoon:, in good faith after reading your statement, I went back and individually assessed every source in the article and I have to say, many of them don't even contain the word "Astrodatabank" which is troubling to me. I don't think this should pass DYK, and to be honest I think it should be sent to WP:AFD.--Coin945 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg article is not supported by extensive coverage in reliable third-party sources. Should be taken to WP:AFD.--Coin945 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)




Winmark

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 04:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

  • "was"? When? EEng 07:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have modified the hook to clarify the IBISWorld report was issued around 2013. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was going to ask "where?", but after reading the lead, have added "American" to the hook instead. Trimmed two "was"s too. Edwardx (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And who, how and why? ;) EEng 02:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


Love Among the Walnuts

Improved to Good Article status by Bobamnertiopsis (talk). Self-nominated at 06:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

BR-319

Bridge on BR-319
Bridge on BR-319

Created/expanded by Aymatth2 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

--DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 12:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg I don't find any issues with this DYK nomination. Interesting and well written. Akumiszcza (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg A full review is needed that specifically mentions checking all of the DYK criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 8[edit]

Khukri Rum

Coronation Khukri Rum
Coronation Khukri Rum
  • ...that Khukri Rum (pictured) is a Nepalese dark rum that comes in Kukri (Gurkha dagger) shaped bottle, was launched in 1974 to mark the coronation of the 12th King of Nepal?
  • ALT1 ...that Khukri Rum (pictured) comes in a Kukri (Nepalese Gurkha dagger) shaped bottle?

Created by AKS.9955 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment only Shorter ALT1 added. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maintaining ALT0 since it is in the specified length and provides key information. Thanks for the comment. Full review required. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • AKS.9955, you should not be striking ALTs suggested by others, unless they are factually incorrect. Once you nominate something for DYK, any changes to your hook, or new hook suggestions, are up to others. ALT1 unstruck. Edwardx (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sara Skyttedal

Sara Skyttedal
Sara Skyttedal

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New and long enough, QPQ done, all non-lead ¶ with citations, a copyvio check reveals no problems, hook and alt content is verified with citations to reliable sources in the article (verified using Google Translate). North America1000 08:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the OG hook plus the image would give plenty of hits. Interesting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you BabbaQ and North America. I agree that ALT0 is the much better hook. I've added a shorter version as ALT2 that you might want to look at. It should be obvious that "Miss Sweden" is a beauty pageant, so we could drop that phrase. Edwardx (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg @BabbaQ: - looking at the article I cannot get a handle on what her Notability really is. Reading through it she has worked for a political party, but does not look like she was never elected to any office anywhere, at most as an alternate/substitute. And now she is retiring from politics. Competing in Miss Sweden and ending in the top 15 is not really enough to give her enough notability. Can you perhaps shed some light on why you think her fairly unremarkable career qualifies her as notable?  MPJ-DK  23:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    The article does not state anywhere that she is retiring. Quite the opposite, she has landed a job as a councilor in Linköping, which is very political and high level in Sweden. I find these questions more appropriate for the articles talk page than this DYK. BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    My English skills has failed me. Councilor was wrong, she is Municipal commissioner. I hope that will help you. I have changed it as well. Being a municipal commissioner is notable for politicians in Sweden. BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I agree with that, it's not an elected office - it's a job in a municipal in Sweden she was hired to do, not a national level job. Municipal jobs in Denmark generally are not that notable, I doubt it's that different in Sweden. There are certain jobs that immediately says "notability" just by being appointed, this isn't one of them IMO.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The reality of this situation is that combined, this person has notability through her work as a politician. The DYK has been approved. I would suggest that we bring this discussion to the articles talk page. As it is a discussion that in my opinion is a matter of different opinions. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is indeed an opinion, but it would affect DYK which is why I noted it here. If this article gets nominated for deletion it would put the DYK on hold until it is either kept or deleted.  MPJ-DK  00:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The reality is that the article would be kept if it was put through an AfD discussion. The article has good sources, the article subject has had several noted jobs within the field of politics etc. Also no one has suggested that the article should be put through that process.BabbaQ (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I have stated my opinion, which I agree is all it is - if a Prep builder disagress with me and believes it has enough notability then by all means take it.  MPJ-DK  00:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on September 9[edit]

Demolition of al-Baqi

Mausoleum of four Shia Imams, one of the buildings of al-Baqi
Mausoleum of four Shia Imams, one of the buildings of al-Baqi

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 11:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Pending review. "It has been suggested that this article be merged into Al-Baqi'. (Discuss) Proposed since September 2016." SL93 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Sālote Lupepauʻu

Queen Sālote Lupepauʻu
Queen Sālote Lupepauʻu

Created by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment only As the first part of the hook is not very interesting, I've added a shorter ALT1 without it. Edwardx (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg I'm assuming good faith on the offline sources (majority of article - including the hook - is cited to offline sources). From what I can tell, the sources support the material in the article and the article does not appear to plagiarize. I prefer the original hook. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn:I reviewed Wube Haile Maryam already. Also if you assuming good faith on the hook, the tick should be AGF not Query on the "Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing" line. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry for missing the QPQ. As for the red x on the copyright violations line, that's an error in the template, that you can't put anything other than y and not have the red x appear. I've changed it to Y to make it more clear. Symbol confirmed.svg All DYK criteria met, hook is good to go. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

To DYK Preper: I prefer the original hook as well. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • KAVEBEAR, as well as who exactly? No one else has expressed a preference for the original hook. Edwardx (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ONUnicorn: "I prefer the original hook.". KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops. Sorry KAVEBEAR. Please accept my apologies. Edwardx (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 10[edit]

Acts of Shmona and of Gurya

  • Comment: Created on September 10th, 18 days ago

Created/expanded by JudeccaXIII (talk). Self-nominated at 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC).

Donald J. Trump Foundation

  • Reviewed: Violetta Thurstan
  • Comment: Promote after November 8, 2016 (Presidential election in the USA)

Created by Eloquence (talk). Nominated by MelanieN (talk) at 19:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment - I think we should delay putting this on the front page of Wikipedia until after the November 8 election. Given that yesterday Newsweek published an investigativ