Template talk:Did you know

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

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

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
November 3 1
November 19 1
November 21 1
December 4 1
December 6 1 1
December 7 1
December 8 1
December 9 2
December 12 1
December 13 1 1
December 15 1
December 19
December 20 2
December 22 3 1
December 25 1
December 26 1
December 27 1
December 29 1
December 30 1
December 31 1
January 2 2
January 3 2
January 4 1
January 5 2
January 6 2
January 7 3 1
January 8 2 1
January 9 3 2
January 10 10 9
January 11 10 6
January 12 8 6
January 13 15 12
January 14 20 16
January 15 17 13
January 16 12 5
January 17 14 9
January 18 16 6
January 19 14 5
January 20 14 7
January 21 8 4
January 22 8 4
January 23 6
Total 212 109
Last updated 10:25, 23 January 2022 UTC
Current time is 11:47, 23 January 2022 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

Further information: Official supplementary guidelines and unofficial guide

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I write an interesting hook?

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

When will my nomination be reviewed?

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

Where is my hook?

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

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

Instructions for reviewers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for project members[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on November 3[edit]

Emily Goss

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

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


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

@Mungo Kitsch: Hello, will you still be able to address the concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis, thank you for your very constructive and enthusiastic feedback, and @Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your reminder; apologies for my delayed response. One thing I did soon after Pamzeis's feedback was abridge the quote in my second DYK, in hopes of curbing my overquoting. And I will intend on getting back to the Emily Goss article fairly soon, and further expanding and fortifying it in the pursuit of it passing the DYK nomination. If you look at my editing history, I've had ten straight days where I did not edit, one big reason being that I have family-related matters that needed attending to, such as Thanksgiving and another more somber matter. Anyways, let me get back to the Emily Goss article again, probably sometime this week. I will try to do some further rephrasing of the DYKs already here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis: Yes, I've got an update or two. I made this and other edits, which had the primary purpose of expanding on where The House on Pine Street premiered, and later to add some theatre to her repertoire. I am also going to see what type of information can be sourced from this podcast, which is another interview with Goss.
I am genuinely unsure, though, what to do to rephrase or spruce up this DYK. The DYK has my consent to be closed. I thought of this entry as a fun way to get exposure for the article I made, and my inexperience with DYK is apparent, as this is my first time being here after having made an article. I fully intend on expanding and refining the Emily Goss article, but to do so on my own time, without pertinent expectation from other parties and institutions. Feel free to add it to your watchlist, or drop in/contribute whenever. Thank you for your guidance. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll do my best to break it down
  • Sources: First and foremost, WP:IMDB is an unreliable source and will have to be removed/replaced. This may apply to other sources (highlighted above). See WP:RS for what contributes to a source being reliable. Usually, the bare minimum is paid staff and an editorial. If you are unsure, you can ask at WP:RSN. Uncredited roles need a source because they can't be source back to the original material... because they didn't credit her.
  • The copyvio detector shows a 50%+ similarity with the Addicted to Horror Movies article. While the quote is properly attributed, it is very long. See WP:OVERQUOTE for more details but this could be interpreted as a copyright violation given it is more than 50% of the source's text.
  • Regarding notability, Goss would have to meet either WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR to warrant an article.
    • GNG means that there need to be multiple (i.e. more than night) reliable (see comments above on an source being reliable), independent (ones with a lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved) sources that cover her significantly (not just one or two sentences about her but a, say, whole section devoted to her)
    • ANYBIO means that a person needs to meet one of the three criteria. The only one I can see Goss potentially meeting is the first one. However, her awards do not seem very significant (the criteria for me is an award being rated high or top importance on WikiProject Awards)
    • NACTOR also means that a person needs to meet one of the three criteria. Again, the only one I could see Goss meeting is the first one (multiple significant roles). The only major role she seems to have had is in The House on the Pine Street, which is only one. The production also has questionable notability per GNG.
  • OK, onto the hooks:
    • ALT0. It's not very interesting. An award that's not noticeable to have an article isn't going to interest many people. If the award was an Oscar, then you might have something, but it's not.
    • ALT1 is interesting, but it's more about the character than the actress. Without the actress, the hook would have the same meaning. Goss's name seems to be shoved in there for the sake of her name being in the hook. This would make a reader more likely to want to find an article on the character instead of the actress.
  • Yeah, I think that's pretty much it... Pamzeis (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    Also, DYK is definitely a fun way to get exposure for an article but it can get tricky when a reviewer (or someone else) and nominator disagree. Don't worry about being inexperienced because that's better than not trying at all and never becoming experienced. We'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis:: Again, thanks for the constructive feedback. I'll do what I can to make this worth your time. Based on your feedback, I think I'll scratch the first DYK and replace it with another factoid that I have in mind. Since the awards she won are of varying notability, that is what factors into your judgment that the first point is not viable, at present, as a DYK. Therefore, I will put increased effort into improving both the article and this DYK presentation. Thanks again. Feel free to check in in a few days to see what I come up with. I intend on making this a priority. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for checking in again, and I'm glad you asked. I did sift through @Pamzeis:'s critique, and found some time to flesh things out today. For one, the WP:COPYVIO concerns posed here are now lesser. (NOTE: Some CPOYVIOs that I did not see until later today, and I have checked multiple times, are that of wiki.ng and olasmediatv.com. Those are unreliable sources, and the text clearly copied the Wikipedia article, and not the other way around. Not sure what I can do about that, but that's clearly their plagiarism and not mine.) I have removed the quote that I had made about Goss's attitude toward Jennifer, and will likely reintroduce the information in an alternate fashion later. I also expanded coverage of her, including her role in Painting Anna. I decided to scratch the first two DYKs altogether to replace them with potentially interesting alternates; I believe the last one I added about the pregnancy prosthetic, ALT5, is my personal favorite DYK at this time. As for notability concerns, the best I can do is continue to add information about her from diverse and reliable sources. And speaking of WP:RS, even before your comment today, the IMDB and Youtube citations were removed by user @Kbabej:. I replaced some of the information that was removed with a valid non-IMDB source.
I will continue to expand and improve this article. I'm glad I could find the time today to do that. Naruto and Pamzeis, if you like what you see here, let me know. If it still misses the mark by DYK standards, let me know too. I'm sorry I have lumbered around time-wise, but I hope that its present state is an improvement, and that this is worth your time. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
From a glance at the sources, many of them seem to be of questionable reliability at best. I will review the alts and copyvio next year. Pamzeis (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I think the new alts are passable. I find ALT3 the most interesting. COPYVIO seems fine now. Pamzeis (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mungo Kitsch: Any updates? Pamzeis (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis: Sure, of course. I appreciate you liking the alt DYKs that I posted, particularly ALT3. I ultimately knew that the first two, by themselves, couldn't cut it. With you deciding that the ALTs are passable, what do you advise at this time moving forward? Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Many of the sources—specifically Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep—are of questionable reliability at the moment. Can you please justify why they should be considered acceptable per WP:RS? Pamzeis (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis:: Sure, I'll take a gander at that, because I have had a challenge with thinking about it during these two months. I believe your concerns are valid, and it's not a matter of me "rejecting" that advice as much as it is me trying to think about the way that removing the sources would impact the article without gutting it. I have felt that inclusion of these sources was valid because of them exhibiting testimonies of Emily Goss in ways that are not mere user-generated content such as IMDB and Youtube being formerly on there.
Dan's Papers is a regional news and culture website for "Long Island's East End" that, despite its name, has more contributors and writers than just Dan Rattiner. It comes off to me as not too dissimilar to a local newspaper with a cultural bent, many of which are acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. FilmInk is a webzine that details news and films and goings-on in the film industry, particularly that of Australia. I am confident that it is an RS, because out of the presently 1,361 hits from searching FilmInk, almost all of them are because of FilmInk citations in an article; while that, by itself, does not an RS make, I believe that it as a webzine that is not self-published nor user-generated makes it worthy of being cited on Wikipedia, kind of like what metalstorm.net is to the worldwide metal music scene, Pitchfork is to the music world generally, and Variety is to the movie world generally. I believe the same argument can apply to Addicted to Horror Movies, as a zine that gave coverage toward, and reviews of, horror movies, until it became inactive in 2017. These may be more marginal than mainstream sites such as The Guardian, which is also cited on the article; but as cultural commentary that are not personal blogs, they, in my opinion, should not be shut out. I don't see how a website such as FernTV.ca, in this context, is problematic. I feel the concern here is that "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact," but these websites are journalistic and not user-generated and not user-edited. However, if the concerns are WP:INTERVIEW based, then that is definitely understandable. I know that interviews can be reliable, and that such from reputed sources are generally acceptable, but that "someone saying it in an interview does not make it true".
A source like Queer Media Matters can be seen as having a political bias, therefore jading the objectivity of what they post; something that has not stopped PinkNews from being on the Perennial sources list. But the specific Queer Media Matters website features an interview with Goss, which therefore features valid information about her film career. Although, come to think of it, Queer Media Matters is almost exclusively run by Dana Piccoli (but some articles have other authors), but does not come off to me as a mere "personal blog" or "fansite". I have encountered several of those which I chose not to cite on the article, one of which is a blog of only eight posts, and none since 2020.
Come to think of it, some of them likely do have independent sourcing concerns; and regarding the North Coast Rep, Three Women in a Box, and Antaeus citations, I have either removed or replaced them with third-party coverage.
With that said, if a peer review decides that these sources do not cut it, then I will do what I can to accommodate. I really want them to be on the page, but you question their validity. Therefore, I have brought it up for discussion here, as you previously advised, to seek additional opinions; feel free to input there if you want. I believe that we have a cross section of WP:INTERVIEW, WP:INDEPENDENT, and maybe even of WP:ADVERT (but hopefully not) at hand, and I hope that additional opinions can assist in the matter, considering how much/little such sources have been discussed on Wikipedia. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
PS: Just in case FilmInk is not passable source, I will do what I can to find an alternate RS at least for this DYK, in hopes that this can finally have a passing grade. It is difficult, though, because I'm seeing a lot of "where to stream" websites with no encyclopedic value. I definitely want to take your good advice to heart and be able to use it, because I'm still invested in this and hope this to succeed, and I know you hope this too. Thanks for all your help. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
PS: I just added a source from iNews for her uncredited role in Suburbicon. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Mungo Kitsch: and @Pamzeis:. I have rephrased all the copyvio that I could find in the article. It should be OK in that respect, now. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Mungo, it should help you in the future to know that just copying and pasting material into an article without quotation marks or acknowledgement is not quotation. It is copyright violation (copyvio), which must be either rephrased or deleted. On the other hand, a quotation is an acknowledged copy of someone else's work, that is, it must either have quotation marks or be in a blockquote, and it must be cited. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Good to know, Storye book. I feel like I am usually pretty good about avoiding CPOYVIOs, but can always use pointers to be even better. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Pamzeis What do you think of the changes? SL93 (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I do agree on the sources. Maybe this should be closed as failed. SL93 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I’m still very unsure on the sourcing. No offence meant, but most of your explanation feels like "I think this source looks similar to another reliable one so it’s reliable". For example, just because a source doesn’t look like a blog doesn’t mean it isn’t. Queer Media Matters, being run by one person, is essentially one, so it needs to be removed per WP:SELFPUB. For the sources I brought up, I could not find any evidence of an editorial policy through a look at their site. I’ll try to explain more tomorrow because it’s getting pretty late where I live. Pamzeis (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Pamzeis I think you're correct. I will articulate a more full response later tonight. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Pamzeis, SL93, I hate to say this, but I agree. I feel like I have looked all over the internet, and have tried very hard and wanted this DYK to work, but the sources available online are oftentimes and usually insufficient; this has been the most serious point of struggle for me since your first critique. I know not to just put "any" source on an article, but have learned via this process about more of the nuances of the RS standards. A good aspect of that is because Goss is, at present, a prominent indie actress, with a handful of wiki-notable roles, who has only episodically appeared in mainstream productions; therefore meaning that coverage of her is sporadic at best in the "right type of sources". And, while I tried and searched for a good RS to back up ALT3, the Painting Anna bit, I don't believe that that film has enough coverage to be considered notable. There is a Kickstarter page for the film, and a review on insistingsimplicity.com written by a guy named JR on his blog, neither of which cut it here, and not much more than that. So if the film can’t be considered notable, then why have a DYK on the front page mentioning it?
Per the advice here, I have deleted the information cited by QMM on the article. The contributors to that website who are other than Piccoli have perhaps written a grand total of three or so articles. So, yeah, it is essentially a blog.
I think the best DYK bit up there, at least in regard to references, is the final one, ALT5, cited by Scream magazine. It is a print magazine (good), but I do not see a listed staff and I am not sure how to navigate proving or disproving which sources are peer-reviewed and which ones are not. Also, it is not mentioned on WikiProject Horror’s list of reliable sources, and I would like to solicit opinions on the magazine’s reliability at some point.
Also, I just got opened up to the Wikipedia Library, which will be a great treasure trove of new resources for me, but I do not believe that this would move the needle in enough of the right direction for this DYK in due time.
If ALT5 does not work, then I am willing to graciously admit failure. I will continue to maintain and improve this article, and am grateful for the help that everyone here offered me, and am sorry I couldn't deliver on this RS matter, and took as long as I did here; I take full responsibility for this. The best thing to do is wait for her career to move forward, which it will, follow the coverage in the future, and update the article accordingly; at present, as I said in the first paragraph and as you, Pamzeis, have tapped into with your critiques, there just isn’t enough coverage of her in what are unambiguously bona fide sources and media. And if there was enough, then many of them would already have been on the article. There is some ‘’The House on Pine Street’’ and ‘’Shook’’ coverage on Bloody Disgusting, a valid RS supported by WikiProject Horror’s aforementioned list; albeit with limited coverage on Goss personally. I would like to utilize such, especially since the ‘’Pine Street’’ article, which I have not meaningfully involved myself with at present, is only sporadically up to Wikipedia’s standards; the entire plot section is “a ghost haunts a house” in all lowercase, which is a very… elementary and vague way to put it.
I have reflected on the advice given here, and I do not believe the Emily Goss article is ready for a DYK approval at this time; I and my ego are disappointed to say this, but it is my present rational conclusion at present. If/when I come back to DYK for this or any other article, I’ll make sure to bear this experience in mind in pursuit of a stronger DYK presentation. To Pamzeis and everyone else here, I appreciate you all and I know you are doing good work here, and I’m sorry I couldn’t make this DYK nomination work.
Mungo Kitsch (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on November 19[edit]

Neural synchrony

  • ... that people's brains fall in neural synchrony with other brains during shared experiences? Source: Kinreich, Sivan; Djalovski, Amir; Kraus, Lior; Louzoun, Yoram; Feldman, Ruth (2017-12-06). "Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 17060
  • ALT1: ... that people's brain activity falls in neural synchrony with other brains when they play music together? Source: Sänger, Johanna; Müller, Viktor; Lindenberger, Ulman (2012). "Intra- and interbrain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6: 312. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312
  • ALT2: ... that guitarists playing a duet together have been shown to be in neural synchrony? Source: Sänger, Johanna; Müller, Viktor; Lindenberger, Ulman (2012). "Intra- and interbrain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6: 312. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312

Created by BGsynch21 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @BGsynch21: New and long enough, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ not needed. Many paragraphs do not have a citation at their end, so it's unclear what source these are cited by. The hook fact doesn't seem to apply generally, as the cited source says in its abstract, "neural synchrony was found for couples, but not for strangers". Thanks for doing such a thorough job on this article; I think it is actually close to Good Article status. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello Antony-22! Thank you very much for reviewing my DYK nomination and for your kind words about the article. I see what you're saying about the citations. My thought process was that the article's paragraphs, barring the intro, should have multiple citations that link to sources for the information used. I didn't create each individual paragraph around one single source, which is why I didn't always cite one source at the end of some of my paragraphs. Instead, many of my paragraphs are structured around a couple different sources, and I did my best to cite these sources appropriately throughout. I hope this is sufficient, but I am open to other perspectives, especially if they are more conducive to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though.
You also make a very good point about the citation for the DYK nomination. I was trying to make a hook that applied to the gist of my article as a whole, rather than one specific fact. Much of the research that supports the claim in the hook uses more specific examples (e.g., communication, coordination, or narrative processing paradigms) to conclude a connection between neural synchrony and shared experiences. Although it does not mention it explicitly in the abstract, the citation I decide to use explores shared subjective experiences, discussing "how natural social moments express in the brain as a shared experience of two interacting humans." Nevertheless, thanks to your comment I'm now realizing that I could have used a more concrete hook and a more precise citation, rather than using a hook that speaks broadly about the essence of my article as a whole. If I could tweak it at this stage, I would, but I am still really hoping for a DYK selection!
Once again, thank you for taking the time to review my article and nomination. I'm glad you think it is thorough and close to Good Article status. I am more than happy to take the necessary steps to upgrade the article, so if you (or anyone else out there) have any suggestions, then I would love to hear from you! BGsynch21 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
BGsynch21, you can always suggest another hook (or other hooks)—sometimes nominations go through a number of hooks before an interesting one is found. Please do create "a more concrete hook and a more precise citation"; it's what's needed now! Thank you very much. (Courtesy ping to reviewer Antony-22, in case they have other suggestions, or a further response to the nominator.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made an adjustment to the DYK nomination. Thanks for letting me know this was possible Bluemoonset! BGsynch21 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
BGsynch21, I was happy to do so. For future reference, we add the new hook as an ALT hook (in this case ALT1), while retaining the old hook for historical purposes. I've restored the original hook and given your new hook an ALT1 label. Antony-22, does the new hook answer your hook concerns? If any citation issues remain, perhaps you can add citation needed templates in those places, and BGsynch21 can provide the necessary citations? Many thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@BGsynch21 and BlueMoonset: The citations still need to be added at the end of several paragraphs. ALT1 is better but I want to avoid making a broad statement based on one or a few primary research articles. How about something like the following? Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that guitarists playing a duet together have been shown to be in neural synchrony?

Antony-22, I think at this point we need to proceed as if BGsynch21 will not be returning; I pinged them over two weeks ago and they haven't edited since. About the citations, I feel I should point out to you what DYK generally expects to meet its criteria (per WP:DYKSG#D2): A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. If there are any paragraphs without citations, then that could be a problem. If the final portion in a paragraph doesn't have one but there are one or more citations earlier in the paragraph, it's less of a concern, unless, of course, a hook fact is in one of those uncited ending sections. If you're otherwise happy with the article, then what we need is a new reviewer for the ALT2 hook you proposed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I have updated the hook per Antony-22's recommendation. Thank you for your help!BGsynch21 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@BGsynch21: Thanks. You also still need to add citations at the end of each paragraph so that every sentence is clearly sourced. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Antony-22 I took care of it by sourcing what needed to be sourced. I did have to remove an unreferenced sentence which only summarized the methods that are listed right below it. I also removed two sentences that appeared to be original research and I found a source in a Google search to reference a statement. SL93 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on November 21[edit]

University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 4[edit]

USS Hoggatt Bay

The aircraft carrier
The aircraft carrier

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 7[edit]

Gheorghe Eminescu

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 8[edit]

Environmental defender

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

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


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

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

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 9[edit]

Murad Takla

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

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

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

Mehediabedin Non-English sources are acceptable as long as they are reliable. SL93 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
SL93 The non-english sources I mentioned in the article are all from reliable newspaper and online newspaper website. We have even Prothom Alo, one of the most read and most reliable newspaper in Bangladesh. Mehedi Abedin 09:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Potamophylax coronavirus

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 12[edit]

The Concept of Active Defence in China's Military Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 15[edit]

Soluble NSF attachment protein

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

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

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


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 19[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 20[edit]

3-nen E-gumi Utatan

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

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

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

Mohnyin Thado

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 22[edit]

Elena Guseva

  • ... that Elena Guseva, a Russian soprano, appeared as Polina when Prokofiev's Der Spieler (The Gambler) was first performed at the Vienna State Opera? Source: [4]
    • Reviewed: to come
    • Comment: sorry, I missed nominating, due 2 days ago - it was ready from the beginning, I just thought of too many other things

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

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

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

ALT1: ... that when Elena Guseva appeared as Marietta in Korngold's Die tote Stadt, a reviewer noted her intense timbre and "beautifully dark blazing passion"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm willing to approve ALT1 or a variation of the suggestion above about her originally wanting to be a conductor. I would just like to note here that given you have made several nominations that were a day or two late, IAR may already be exhausted and thus any future late nominations may be quickfailed even if they were only late by a day or two. The time requirement is seven days and generally we need to adhere to that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Elena Guseva said, preparing the role of Polina in Prokofiev's The Gambler at the Vienna State Opera, that having studied to be a choral conductor "helped her extremely" to analyse that score?
I added a bit to the article. Having said that, I still believe that the original is strong and short:
  1. It illustrates her focus on Russian characters, which ALT1 doesn't.
  2. It gives the "ordinary reader" an interesting title, + two generally known words: "Prokofiev" and "Vienna State Opera".
  3. It alludes (Polina, The Gambler) to Dostojewsky which some may recognise.
  4. It expands knowledge of a less-known work.
  5. It illustrates that she was called for a special occasion.
  6. I also realise that both ALTs rely heavily on translation, and I can't tell if what Deepl gives me for the critic's wording is really what the German says.
More generally: you said well that I'm interested in promoting opera, which means not only the singers, therefore a general "lead role at major house after a few years" is not my way. We recently had the Talk:Johann-Werner Prein hook which exposed a composer and his work banned by the Nazis, and I'm please that the composer (866) and especially his work (1,037) received more hits than the singer (767). The same condition would be true for ALT1 but we shouldn't play the Nazi card too often ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT2 has promise, but I think it needs a bit of copyediting. perhaps it can be changed to "while preparing for the role of Polina..., Elena Guseva..."? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron and Storye book: Is it okay if either of you rephrase ALT2? I actually like the hook fact, it's really good, the phrasing is just a bit clunky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • My take: theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 07:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • ALT2a: ... that Elena Guseva's background as a choral conductor turned out to be useful when playing Polina in Prokofiev's The Gambler at the Vienna State Opera?
      • I was careful to say that she felt that, and don't believe we can deliver it as a fact. Also, we say "appear" or "perform" for opera singers who sing and play. Adding "soprano" might be useful, vs. choral conductor. People may know that Polina is the lead woman in the novel, but not that the composer assigned soprano, or even that it is an opera (which is the last word). Also: "useful" is a rather pale word. The fact is that she was interested in the whole thing, not just her role, which I believe says a lot more about her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Theleekycauldron that the ALT2 needed re-wording, and I am perfectly happy with ALT2a. If you want another one to argue over, then you could maybe have:
  • ALT2b: ... that former experience of conducting choirs was of value to soprano Elena Guseva when she played Polina in Prokofiev's The Gambler? Storye book (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • My problem with both ALT2a and ALT2b is that while the article mentions that she studied choral conducting, it nowhere says that she actually conducted choirs. While I think it highly unlikely that she could pursue those studies without doing any conducting in the process, the article nevertheless needs to have the fact stated unambiguously and supported by a source that way if it is to be used in a hook. (I agree that the phrasing of ALT2 was problematic, and cannot run as written.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT2c: ... that Elena Guseva's training as a choral conductor helped her analyse the score when playing Polina in Prokofiev's The Gambler at the Vienna State Opera?
  • The above ALT2c contains facts from citation 1 (publig.Renate) as I understand it from Google translate (copied below) Storye book (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In the upcoming premiere of Sergei Prokofiev's work "The Gambler" ("Igrok") at the Vienna State Opera - the first premiere of this season, and the first time that this work is heard in a production of the State Opera in Vienna - we find Elena Guseva as Polina, one of the main roles. In an interview, the soprano, who was born in south-west Siberia, talks about the complexity of Russian libretti and about the right time to add a new role to the repertoire (Renate Publig, interviewer) ... My studies in choral conducting give me a great advantage because I analyze the musical structures. Prokofiev allowed the complexity of the story to flow into the complexity of the orchestral score, the harmony in the orchestra pit is not always apparent on first hearing. The vocal lines, on the other hand, are composed very "naturally", Prokofiev very often uses the technique of leading the voices almost in chanting. He composed in a form of redeintonation that corresponds to the actual style and intonation of Russian. There are hardly any arias or duets, but the music relatively corresponds to the way people talk to each other. (Elena Guseva)

  • @Storye book: I think ALT2c is better than the original hook, but should it reworded slightly to mention "The Gambler" immediately after "the score", or is the current wording sufficiently clear? To me, mentioning Polina before The Gambler sounds a bit weird given that "the score" was referring to The Gambler. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    not weird, just normal, and we do have to mention the role, which is a key character in literature that people may know even if they are not into opera --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that we remove Polina from the hook, just that the hook's wording be re-arranged a bit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT2d: ... that Elena Guseva's training as a choral conductor helped her analyse the score when playing Polina in Prokofiev's The Gambler at the Vienna State Opera?
  • @Narutolovehinata5: and @Gerda Arendt: I'm with Gerda on that one. Guseva was going to sing Polina. not conduct The Gambler. If you check out the sources, she was interested in the relationship between the musical line of Polina and the lines of the other singers and orchestral parts. I can see what she was getting at. When I first sang lieder (it was Hugo Wolf), I was given just my (seemingly rather banal) part to learn at home, but when I turned up and sang it with the piano accompaniment, I was astonished that the accompaniment was pretty well in another key and was telling a quite different story, which magically coloured my songline, turning it into something astonishing (the songline, not my singing of course). In my case, the musical dots did that by themselves, but opera is in every respect bigger than lieder. In the case of a professional like Guseva, she would be able to work out how to lean right into it and get something even better out of the situation. So "score" has to be near "Polina", because that's Guseva's job. I've given you ALT2d which is identical to 2c except that I've linked more words, as there seems to be a bit of concern about readers understanding things. I think that linking choral conductor is overdoing it a bit, but I would like to see "score" linked because a lot of people out there think that "score" is to do with competitive sports. Storye book (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Prefer ALT2c to ALT2d: the new links are intrusive and unnecessary, especially the two for "choral" and "conductor"; I can see the argument for "score", though I'm ambivalent about its addition. I don't agree with Narutolovehinata5 that this hook should be reworded, and agree with Storye book about why. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I like the idea of alt2 and think the linking in d is overkill. I'll again mention the film perspective as to why... nobody has ever thought the Oscar for Best Score is about sports. Alt2 itself is awkward, and a and b do seem to miss the point; I would also prefer alt2c. Kingsif (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila

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

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

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Lillian Eichler Watson

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 26[edit]

Hawkstone Lager

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

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

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

Symbol possible vote.svg A new hook will need to be used; the original one has been vetoed by me, as noted at WT:DYK#For fuck's sake. (There is a suggestion there for using the Birmingham/Spain banned advertisement as the subject of an alternate hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: What was factually wrong with it? ALT1 ... that an advert for Hawkstone Lager made using ingredients from Jeremy Clarkson's farm, was banned because it contained Clarkson drinking the beer in the morning before work? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The question you should be asking is "What was wrong with it?", but that should have been obvious from the WT:DYK discussion. Since it apparently wasn't: Aside from the fact that you have filled in the asterisks from the source, the main problem is with your tone-deaf attempt to unnecessarily put profanity on the main page, which is a perfectly valid and reasonable use of the veto. (ALT1 has promise, though I'm pretty sure that the advert wasn't made using the farm ingredients, but rather the lager itself. How about an ALT1a that's clearer in its wording?) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that The C of E is now indefinitely topic-banned from DYK, someone else will need to do ALT1a. Another possibility could be a hook about how the original name was "Lager McLagerface", which was vetoed for not having a premium feel. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Giving this a shot:
ALT2 ... that Hawkstone Lager was originally planned to be called "Lager McLagerface", but the name was rejected for not conveying a premium image?
The issue right now is that the sentence is currently uncited in the article (the nearest reference to it, [5], doesn't mention it); however, other sources do mention it, such as [6] and The Times). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

ALT3 ... that a new beer was originally planned to be called "Lager McLagerface", but the brand name was rejected for failing to convey a premium image? Source: Is Jeremy Clarkson's new lager the best beer in the world? 7&6=thirteen () 14:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg The source for ALT3 is Jeremy Clarkson himself who is not reliable in this matter because of his conflict of interest and the meta nature of the topic. This daft name was obviously intended to attract attention and free publicity so we shouldn't fall so easily for it. Clarkson normally works with a production team and his supposed ad libs and accidents are often rehearsed and scripted. And most beer advertising is fantasy – "probably the best beer in the world"; "Guinness is good for you"; "refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach" – so we should not present such fabrications as fact. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I will have to disagree on this one. The source is indeed Clarkson, but those came from interviews covered in reliable sources. In this case, I'm willing to assume good faith that he was telling the truth and not making stuff up just for the sake of advertising. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources for DYK articles and hooks as long as they are uncontroversial information that is unlikely to have been made up. Indeed, if there were any concerns that the article or hook was an advertisement, ALT3 already solves these concerns by not mentioning the beer by name. Also, saying that all beer advertising is fantasy as a reason to oppose the nomination is invoking WP:OSE, and what we're discussing here is if the hook meets DYK requirements, not if it is fantasy or not. The hook should stand or fall on its own merits, not by being compared to other beer adverts. I would suggest a different editor take a look at this and either accept or reject the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarkson has made such a career out of saying and doing outrageous things that we even have an article about them. The assume-good-faith principle is not there to give a free pass to absurd advertising claims made by someone who is so clearly not reliable or independent. Not even close. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew on this - Clarkson is a prankster, and his word cannot be taken at face value. Suggested alt:
Symbol delete vote.svg There's at least three problems with this.
  1. The sourcing is inadequate, being stuff like Grand Tour Nation, which is a fan site and so neither independent nor reliable.
  2. The hook describes this as Jeremy Clarkson's beer. The legal ownership of the brand is unclear but it seems quite clear that the production is all being done by the Cotswold Brewing Company on a different farm and the website says "Hawkstone is the brainchild of Jeremy Clarkson and Rick and Emma from the Cotswold Brew Co. ... He was introduced to Rick and Emma from the Cotswold Brewery by the landlord at their local and they hit it off immediately. Like Jeremy, they’re committed to supporting local agriculture but they’re not just good people, they’re also excellent brewers. They created Hawkstone Lager - a brew of such exquisite quality that Jeremy decided to invest." So, the beer is the work of Rick and Emma while Clarkson is one of several investors. He is also said to grow the barley used but elsewhere we read that this goes through middlemen and so that aspect is rather indirect.
  3. If we are to believe the story, then the Advertising Standards Authority banned the slogans on the grounds that they were not in the public interest, promoting alcoholism, for example. Why are we then repeating this improper advertising for free and hyping it further by putting it on the front page? We have a fairly clear policy and DYK rule banning advertising too.
Andrew🐉(talk) 12:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Good catch on the grandtournation link - I hadn't taken a close look at the sources when I proposed the above hook, but now that I have, I notice that there doesn't seem to be a source to confirm that these ads were actually banned by the ASA - quite likely they were just fake ads made by Clarkson to garner some publicity. So it looks like that hook is out too. I haven't followed up on your assertion that it's not actually Clarkson's beer, but if that's correct, the article may contain too many errors to be run anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Is ALT3 really unsuitable or could it still be used if there's no remaining option? If there are just too many concerns and there are no suitable facts yet then yes unfortunately the nomination may need to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Tracking my interest in this topic, Google puts this video in my YouTube feed. Notice that it was posted by Grand Tour Nation but appears to be another advert. It's all about selling (or giving away) beer, right? Untangling the actual facts from the hype still seems too difficult at this time. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As I said above, ALT3 is not viable in my view because it states as fact a claim made by Clarkson. Other than that, I think the article just contains too many factual misstatements; it says Clarson "made" and "brewed" the beer himself when it appears he just supplied the barley and a local brewer did the brewing, it says he intended to call the beer "Lager McLagerface" but that is only a claim not an established fact, and it says the ASA banned his first three ads when none of the sources support that. These misstatements do not inspire confidence in the rest of the article. So unless somebody wants to correct the existing misstatements and check the article for other errors, I think this one will have to be failed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election

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

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

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


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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 29[edit]

Donald H. Elliott

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

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

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

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

  • ALT1: ... that Donald H. Elliott's town planning schemes for New York helped to combat poverty? - or something one those lines? Storye book (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed, please, by the above commentators or anyone else? Storye book (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article was moved to mainspace within the required timeframe. It's long enough and new enough at the time of nomination, and a QPQ has been done. There are however some minor article issues that need to be addressed: his date of birth and date of death are both unreferenced in the article. There's also no information about his later life (or indeed anything after 1975). There's also an "External links" section that is empty. Finally, I'm not really a fan of ALT1 either: it's quite vague. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. In response to the above review, I have cited the bmd dates (previously already cited but lumped in with other text and all cited as one). I have added a link into the Ext. links section, which was there waiting for the authority control template to kick in (I don't know if he has a Wikidata number; I'll check). I could not find a source for life after 1975 - maybe he was rich enough to retire. I could only read a part of the NYT article because it's behind a paywall. As for ALT1, it has to match the sources, and vague is what we got. Now, I'll go and check his Wikidata (if any). ETA gottim. His Wikidata number is Q110316787. It's an almost bare page, so I'll add in what I can. Storye book (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there really noting else that could be added to the later life section, including at the very least his death? As for ALT1, I'm still not a fan of it and I would suggest either a rewording or some clarification as to exactly what he did. If it doesn't work out then unfortunately closure may have to be considered. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Narutolovehinata5 I would like to address some of your concerns, but real life is about to interrupt me. I hope to be able to get back to this tomorrow or Wednesday. Somebody please ping me if I have not edited the article by Wednesday? I shall need to do some research, first, of course. Storye book (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Courtesy ping to nominator Thriley to see if they can help address any concerns too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5. For your elucidation and delectation, I give you the very slightly expanded Mister Elliott, who now has a death, two publications, a wife, an affinity with a certain political party, and life after 1973. Oh, and a photo. Enjoy. Storye book (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the expansion. However, the hook's issues still need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 30[edit]

Chinese dama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cunard (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Thank you for this very comprehensive article on the dama. In response to the above conversation, I have struck ALT0. ALT1 is fine, and is sourced here and in the article by the same citation.

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on December 31[edit]

Avraham Tamir

Daniel Efrat
Daniel Efrat

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 2[edit]

Zero-COVID

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

    • Comment: New article

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

  • Symbol possible vote.svg DYKcheck says that the current version of the article has only '1386 characters (221 words) "readable prose size"'. That falls below the DYK minimum of 1,500 characters.
    @Moxy and Novem Linguae: I am sure that it can readily be expanded to pass the threshold. If and when that happens, please ping me and I will complete the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    BrownHairedGirl. Thanks to Thucydides411 starting an expansion, we're currently at 524 words, 3536 characters. Feel free to resume your review. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Novem Linguae: that's good news, but I think it will be difficult to review while it is being actively expanded. Please can you or @Thucydides411 ping me when it has stabilised again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: I'll ping you once the article is a bit more stable. I'm still adding content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, @Thucydides411.
    Moxy's correction[7] of the hook fact is welcome, but the fact that the first hook was wrong suggests that the initial nomination was premature. It would be helpful if all 3 editors could review the article before a full DYK review is started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not wrong...some like to list the distinctions of Greater China ....so was amended as so.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    The unualified term "China" usually refers to the PRC, not Taiwan. So it was at best misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    P.S. Suggest adding myself and Thucydides411 to the nomination, if appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Novem Linguae:: done[8]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the current hook is accurate - Macau is still pursuing a zero-covid strategy too, isn't it?[9]Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but that source doesn't appear to say that Macau is still pursing zero-COVID. My quick search for the word Macau didn't indicate anything like that in the vicinity of the word. Can you clarify with a quote? More generally, I agree that we need to tighten up the hook. That is one of the reasons this DYK is on hold. We had one article that said XYZ are the only countries pursuing COVID, but as we expand the article we are finding additional countries. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    The source I linked says "Since the early days of the covid-19 pandemic, China’s aim has been to eliminate the coronavirus entirely from within the mainland’s borders. Hong Kong and Macau have similar strategies." The alternate hook you suggested below seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hook #2: Proposal for new hook that has no danger of being factually incorrect: ...that places such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have pursued a zero-COVID strategy?Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. New hook seems to correct the issues. ––FormalDude talk 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Bloomberg reported this morning that Omicron has ruined Hong Kong's Zero COVID [10]. Zero COVID is just a political slogan and the article gives undue weight to this political angle. CutePeach (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Zero Covid is a ongoing response for COVID-19, so this article can be updated. I think it's ok. Thingofme (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl. Hey there. It's been a week or so. Probably worth taking another look at this. I proposed a new hook above that avoids some of the issues with the first one. Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey BrownHairedGirl. Sorry for the double ping. Just wanted to follow up and see if you had some time to work on this. I think this may be ready to approve using hook #2, but I'll leave that up to your good judgment. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @Novem Linguae, and sorry for my slow reply.
    I took a quick look at the article, and it seems that you have all done great work. It now has 4928 words and over 140 references ... so it has grown from being a stub when nominated to something more like B-class. Well done!
    However, that also means that the task of reviewing it for DYK has grown from being a 20-minute task to a whole day's work. And I am sorry to say that I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote a whole day to do, and I won't sign off as reviewed an article which I have not properly scrutinised.
    So I think it's best that I bow out, and someone else does the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Thank you for letting us know. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Naren Chandra Das

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

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


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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 3[edit]

Red Clay State Historic Park

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

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

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Die ersten Menschen

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 5[edit]

Osteogenesis imperfecta

Blue sclerae
Blue sclerae

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 6[edit]

International Habitation Module

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 7[edit]

Tek Fog

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

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

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

Bulli Bai case

  • ... that app Bulli Bai was used to create, an online mock auction of prominent women, to harass them? Source: DW
    • ALT1: ... that creators of the Bulli Bai app, for an online mock auction of women, had used Sikh names to mislead people? Source: "Names related to the Sikh community were used to make it look like these Twitter handles had been created by persons from that community," the police release issued in the evening said. The women who were targeted were Muslim, so there was a possibility that it could have created "enmity between two communities" and led to "breach of public peace", it said. [12] [13]
    • ALT2: ... that members of the alt-right neo-Nazi groups, created the Bulli Bai app, for an online mock auction of Indian women? Source: "Police have linked the creators of both apps to the online alt-right group “Trads” that derives inspiration from neo-Nazi online movements. Vice
    • Reviewed: Exempt

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 8[edit]

Declan Costello

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

5x expanded by CeltBrowne (talk). Self-nominated at 00:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

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

References

Articles created/expanded on January 9[edit]

St. Sylvester, Schwabing

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

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 10[edit]

Holger Mühlbauer

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 11[edit]

Paul Cosford

Chest X-ray showing lung cancer
Chest X-ray showing lung cancer
  • ... that in 2019 Paul Cosford presented findings that lung cancer (pictured) in people who have never smoked is increasing and is more common than many people think? Source: The authors include Prof Paul Cosford...the absolute numbers and rates of lung cancers in never-smokers are increasing..People will find these numbers very surprising. They rarely think of lung cancer as a non-smoker’s disease. They’re so focused on smoking as the main risk factor that we forget that there are quite a few causes of lung cancer that affect non-smokers." [14][15]
    ALT1... that in 2019, Paul Cosford and his colleagues found that lung cancer (pictured) was more common in non-smokers than was generally thought? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

5x expanded by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Ioan Caragea

Caragea in or after 1819
Caragea in or after 1819

5x expanded by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 15:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

Isabel Leighton

Created by Whitsunderland (talk). Self-nominated at 02:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

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

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

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

O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 12[edit]

North East MRT line

  • ... that until 2016, fares on Singapore's North East MRT line were higher than those on the other MRT lines? Source: [16]
    • ALT1: ... that in 1991, it was planned to further extend Singapore's North East MRT line to serve future residential and industrial developments on Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong? Source: "Long term development plans for Tekong and Ubin revealed". The Straits Times. 24 February 1991. p. 16.
    • ALT2: ... that Singapore's North East MRT line saw the first launch of the Art-in-Transit (AiT) programme – a public artwork showcase on the MRT network? Source: [17]
    • Reviewed: Washington State Route 304

Improved to Good Article status by ZKang123 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 13[edit]

Killing of Halim Dener

Memorial to Halim Dener
Memorial to Halim Dener

Created by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 16:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

Jeffrey Rosenfeld

  • ... that Australian neurosurgeon Jeffrey Rosenfeld is developing a wireless device that promises to give limited vision to the blind? Source: "it could one day help restore vision in those suffering from untreatable blindness." ... "The system... consists of custom headgear with a built-in camera, a wireless transmitter" ... and later it specifies that he is "lead author of the study, Professor Jeffrey Rosenfeld". [18]
    • ALT1: ... that in his spare time, Australian neurosurgeon Jeffrey Rosenfeld volunteers his services to offer first aid to spectators at the football? Source: “In his spare time, Jeffrey Rosenfeld would have to be one of the most highly qualified St John Ambulance volunteers to offer emergency first aid to spectators at the footy.” [19]
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eberhard Zeidler

Moved to mainspace by Gronk Oz (talk). Self-nominated at 08:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

Wiley Rutledge

  • ... that Wiley Rutledge's grave is empty? Source: Christensen, 2008, pg. 25: "'The remains of Justice Rutledge are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, Suitland, Maryland, near Washington, D.C., pending a family decision on his final resting place. Annabel Rutledge placed a headstone in his memory at Mountain View Cemetery in Boulder, Colorado.' Of course, I had previously gone to Boulder—a several-hundred-mile "detour"—and paid my respects at what I now discovered was an empty grave."
    • ALT1: ... that future U.S. Supreme Court justice Wiley Rutledge married his college Greek instructor in a tuberculosis sanatorium? Source: Hall, 2001, pg. 331: "There he majored in classical languages and met his future wife Annabel Person, who taught Greek at the college....The same disease that killed his mother soon destroyed his health as well, however, and he was forced to retire to a sanatorium, where he began the slow process of recovery from tuberculosis—and where he married Annabel in August 1917."
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Camilleri

5x expanded by Extraordinary Writ (talk). Self-nominated at 04:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Full review to follow (though a quick check checked out), but right now I have a question about ALT1 (which is my preferred hook): is there a reason why there's an emdash instead of just being a space? The thought seems to work even if there's just a space between "instructor" and "in" since the main hook fact is him marrying his wife in a sanatorium. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Narutolovehinata5. If you think it would flow better without the emdash, that's fine. The reason I put it there is that there are two facts that I want to emphasize: that he married his college professor (unusual) and, separately, that he got married in a tuberculosis sanatorium (really unusual). But I trust your judgment, so feel free to remove it if you think that's better. Thanks again! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The reason I brought up the emdash thing is because I don't really see that being used often in DYK hooks. I think the hook does read slightly better without it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on January 14[edit]

Lucifer on the Sofa

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

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

2022 Ukraine cyberattack

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

  • I expanded the article a lot recently, I am not sure when the most recent fivefold expansion was, but the 14 January creation date may be a bit earlier than necessary. Perhaps someone with better character-counting abilities can figure out what the expansion date should be. Unrelated, but I am new here so QPQ doesn't apply. Toadspike (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Shirley McGreal

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

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

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut

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

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

Articles created/expanded on January 15[edit]

Godzilla Megamullion

The Godzilla Megamullion marked on an elevation map
The Godzilla Megamullion marked on an elevation map

Created by Fulmard (talk). Self-nominated at 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

  • I intend to review this shortly Chidgk1 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Otto Jäger

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

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

Joseph Vallot

Joseph Vallot (right)
Joseph Vallot (right)

Created by Nick Moyes (talk). Self-nominated at 00:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough and easily long enough. QPQ done. Earwig found only proper noun phrases and properly marked quotes, no problematic copying. Image is PD, although not very legible at the tiny DYK size. Hook is interesting enough. Most content is adequately sourced, but the hook claims must have a citation on the sentence in the article making those claims, and they currently don't. Additionally, an entire paragraph (beginning "Vallot put his knowledge") is unsourced and marked as needing a source, and some of the entries in selected publications have neither a source nor a link through which we can verify that these publications actually existed. These sourcing issues need to be fixed before this can be accepted for DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Joseph Vallot
@David Eppstein: Thank you. I have now addressed the valid concerns you raised.The image originally supplied is certainly small, but represents a momentous achievement for 1887 in proving that living at altitude is possible. However, a more detailed image of the man himself is offered here as an alternative. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
You addressed some but not all of the sourcing concerns. Where, for instance, can I verify the claim that he published a map of the Mont Blanc massif? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: The image of the Mont Blanc map included in the article clearly shows both his and Henri Vallot's names upon it, and it would have been inappropriate for me to have said (see image). However, there were also three inline citations which supported the statement (see here and here), all unfortunately in French, but easily translated with Google translate viz: 1) "Faced with the need to have precise maps, Joseph Vallot ... launched an ambitious project at its own expense cartography of the Mont Blanc massif. He associates Henri with it who, to the question "must we improve existing maps or make a completely original card? », chooses ... a new map at 1/20,000. In 1891 [it] began....The two cousins share the task: to Joseph, a very good mountaineer, work in the high mountains; to Henry... observations at accessible altitudes"
and 2) "Only one map, from Chamonix, was published during their lifetime and it was finally Charles, Henri's son, who made the others with the help of Étienne de Larminat. on a real estate map of the Mont-Blanc massif on 1/20,000 and from entirely new surveys. This business occupied them for more than thirty years, Joseph doing the surveys in the high mountains and Henri in the valley." If you feel I've missed other citations to support key statements, I'll be happy to address them. I know what it's like when you think you've got your head around every fact and every source, only to have missed something obvious, and I do appreciate that sources not in English can be an extra challenge to verify. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
So could you maybe choose one of those footnotes and reuse it to source the corresponding entry in the "Selected publications" section? Same for the other two that have no link. DYK rules require that all content (all sections and all paragraphs within sections) have sources. The fact that one can read the article and find the same information sourced elsewhere within it does not satisfy this requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jolly Monument

The monument in 2008
The monument in 2008

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

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

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on January 16[edit]

Da'ud ibn al-Adid

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

Lesley Johnson

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

Port of Shahid Rajaee

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 04:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Cyril Croker

5x expanded by Schwede66 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Alcohol in association football

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

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

Qadi al-Fadil

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

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

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

Article review:

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

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

McLaren MCL36

Created by 5225C (talk). Self-nominated at 11:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on January 17[edit]

Sea rewilding

Kelp forest in New Zealand
Kelp forest in New Zealand

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

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

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

I tidied the last remaining issue. Others also expanded the article. It’s your lucky day; it’s now long enough. I’ll look at it tomorrow in detail. Schwede66 08:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg As I said, the article is now long enough. It's new enough. I've tidied it up further for use of external links (see edit summary for details). It's neutral but has a narrow focus on Europe (especially England); given that it's an international issue, it could do with a broader perspective. That said, we aren't aiming for perfection and as long as no maintenance tags turn up, I shall let this slide. It's suitably referenced. Earwig is happy. With the edits that have been undertaken, the ALT1 hook fact is no longer spelled out in the article. I've struck ALT0 for clarity. With regards to a QPQ, that is the nominator's responsibility and given that you've got a good number of credits under your belt, one is required for this nomination from you. The image's license is fine, but I'm not sure that it's a great image. There are better images in c:Category:Kelp forests in my view. So there's a bit more to do. Schwede66 08:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Have stated hook explicitly, changed pic and added a couple of non-European examples. So am I misunderstanding QPQ? I nominated Great North Bog with QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Teodor Boldur-Lățescu but it appears both on https://betacommand-dev.toolforge.org/reports/logs/dyk/Chidgk1.html and on https://betacommand-dev.toolforge.org/reports/logs/dyk/Melissa_Highton.html So could whichever one of those is the "duplicate payment" be used here? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tatiana Saunders

Tatiana Saunders
Tatiana Saunders

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