Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DYKN)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK. Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Contents

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
August 23 1
August 29 1
September 9 1 1
September 11 2 1
September 12 1
September 18 1 1
September 23 2
September 24 1
September 25 1
September 26 3 1
September 27 2
September 28 2 1
September 29 1
September 30 3 1
October 1 2 1
October 2 1 1
October 3 1 1
October 4 3
October 5 2 1
October 6 6 3
October 7 2 2
October 8 3 2
October 9 6 2
October 10 2 1
October 11 3 1
October 12 6 5
October 13 6 5
October 14 8 7
October 15 7 2
October 16 8 2
October 17 6 3
October 18 6 4
October 19 4
October 20 1
Total 105 49
Last updated 15:03, 20 October 2017 UTC
Current time is 17:00, 20 October 2017 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

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

To nominate an article[edit]

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
I.
Create the nomination subpage.

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

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

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

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

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

Where is my hook?[edit]

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there 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.
  • Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed to help in tracking removals.

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 August 23[edit]

Keystone State Wrestling Alliance

Created/expanded by Gvstaylor1 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

  • Seems like a solid DYK but the "(or is a fan of)" could be removed based on the fact it suggests it is not sure about it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fixed that. Anything else? Gvstaylor1 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Every paragraph needs at least one citation, yet there are whole sections with no citations at all. See "Birth of the KSWA 2000-2005," "Modern Era 2005-Current," "Fan Fest," and "Millvale Days." A cursory glance also shows that there are many quotations which are not cited. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I am still working on it, most of it is recorded by my father who is the "Ring Announcer/Writer" currently. So I am trying to write it in such a way that it is not seen as a advertisement but more of the encyclopedia history. He has been adding things as well. Citations will be added.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Citations added, article is now ready for a full review. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Substantial updates have been made, but there are still some sections that require sources. The "Roster" section is entirely unsourced. Each row within "Joe Abby Memorial Tournament" needs a source. Same goes for "Mario Ferraro Sr. Memorial Tournament", "KSWA Hall of Fame", and "Championships" (current and former). I noticed that the paragraphs before the boxes have a source, but I clicked the source to see if the information below was cited and it wasn't. In addition, there is 85.8% copyright violation in this article. Please make sure to paraphrase sources/write stuff in your own words. Please fix this as soon as you can. Other things check out: new, long enough, no QPQ (editor's first DYK), neutral, and reliable sources used. Cheers, MX () 09:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How can you copy-write violate something that the same person wrote it? You don't. And how is it violated? It's being entirely rewritten for the most part.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gvstaylor1: Hi, I don't think I understand what you are trying to tell me. Are you telling me you wrote the source? According to Eargwig, a tool we use to see if the article's text matches the sources cited, there seems to be a lot of similarity between the article's text and this source here. Please go here to see what I'm referring to. There are two paragraphs that seem problematic. In order for this to pass, you or someone else would have to paraphrase the source's text. Let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance. I apologize in advance is there is any misunderstanding. Cheers, MX () 02:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Thanks for your work on this MX and Gvstaylor1. Just changing the review tag. The orange x means the article is an almost certain no (and closes the nomination after a few days), while this one just indicates that there are some problems to be worked out before approval, which seems more appropriate here. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Gvstaylor1 - Thank you for reaching out at my talkpage. I'm still getting an 84% plagiarism rate on our copyright detector. Are you able to view the page? The left side is the article's prose; the red marks are phrases that match the right part, the sources you used. It is OK when certain phrases match (i.e. names and dates), but we cannot have whole paragraphs match. You need to rewrite these entirely. MX () 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@MX: I cannot see the pageGvstaylor1 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Gvstaylor1: Hmmm, try accessing here with another engine (Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc.) and adding the title of the article in "Page title". Then click submit. Let me know. MX () 16:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Gvstaylor1, any progress in rewording the copied content? Sourcing looks pretty good: just missing sources for the winners of the Mario Ferraro Sr. Memorial Tournament. Also, you have two paragraphs (about the “Best Place To Stand Around With A PBR”) that say the same thing. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I'm currently away from home for a week or 2. Sorry, emergency personal issesGvstaylor1 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Because of the nominator's absence and the serious copyright violations (81.8%), I'm calling to close this nomination. MX () 15:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)+
  • There's still a 81% copyright violation, see here. MX () 01:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If you check the history, you'll see my edits were removed. I've since reverted the page. 72.74.195.143 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have checked the IP's removal and while aggressive most of the material they removed was intricate detail not of general interest and much of it was copyvio from here. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view and I have done revision deletion of the copied material. The image File:Formerkswa.png contains material that is over the threshold of originality in my opinion, so I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. For both the prose and the image I have provided the user with instructions as to how to get an OTRS ticket, as he implies that he may be the copyright holder of this content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely Love returning home to find my own work deleted. What the hell kind of Encylapedia is this where you delete the "Under Construction" Banner. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is unacceptable that my work was deleted. Hours of work done, and ignoring the under construction banner and the talk page. But I guess reading the percentage rather than actually looking into the copyrighting is more important. If you actually read that copywrite page, it was Event Names, People names, Dates. that is 90% of the article, of fucking course it will be close. How do you paraphrase and already paraphrased history both written by the same person? Explain that to me. Do you go around Vandalizing all pages with Construction banners? Diannaa MX Tell me how to do the damn OTRS pending before deleting everything. Gvstaylor1 (talk)`
We're not allowed to host copyright material on this wiki, not even temporarily for editing, and the presence of a "under construction" banner does not make an article an exception to this policy. I have restored the material since you have now tagged the page as OTRS pending. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg This nomination must be held until the pending OTRS request has been processed and licensing of the source confirmed. Diannaa, is there any way such requests can be expedited? Also, it should be noted that an "Under construction" banner itself reads, If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. It is not a banner with any permanence on Wikipedia, and its removal was completely proper. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Expediting an OTRS ticket requires an OTRS agent, which I am not. You could try posting at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well seeing that this and the talk page both asked for time, i guess people editing these pages can't have lives outside editing Wikipedia pages. The under construction page does not give you the right to delete the entire page, after requesting multiple times instruction on how to release things to no reply. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gvstaylor1, I'm responding to the message in my talkpage. There is a 81% copyright violation, and there are entire paragraphs in the article that are exactly the same as the source. It is fine to have matches if they are names, but having entire paragraphs match when they can be rephrased is unacceptable. Are you able to access Earwig? Let me know how I can help and if you need additional time. MX () 16:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
MX funny how the new update is back to 81% copy write when i was down to 72%, but that got deleted. (Shows 85% for me on that stupid website) I will be waiting for the copywrite release to be finished. Before making any other changes. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything myself. Anyhow, 72% is still quite high... MX () 14:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I know it is, but it's kind of hard to rewrite it when someone deletes it. Now I'm just jumping through hoops because I'm tired of it being deleted every time i edited it. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been applied. We ok to proceed now? Gvstaylor1 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Gvstaylor1, we are fine to proceed now that the licensing information has been added to the article and talk page. Thank you for your patience. Please let us know here when you've made the updates you want to the article, and be sure to take care of the bare URLs that have been used for some of the source citations. MX, please note that when you do continue the review, Earwig may still show a high number and copied paragraphs for the patch.com source even with the license, but it is no longer a problem for that one source. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg @Gvstaylor1: I checked everything and was about to promote this, but noticed that some of the references at the bottom are incomplete (mainly those between 25 - 54). Some are bare URLs, while others lack accessdates, publishers, etc. Adding complete references is crucial to prevent WP:LINKROT, so I'm quite hesitant to approve the article until this is addressed. Other than that, everything else checks out. Look forward to having this on the Main Page! MX () 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
MX, as I noted above, bare URLs must be filled in before a DYK nomination can be appropriate for the main page, see WP:DYKSG#D3 for details. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 23[edit]

Weichenwang

  • ... that a spectral knight on a white horse is sometimes seen riding toward Weichenwang to visit his lover?
  • Comment: Appropriate for Halloween

5x expanded by Peter Flass (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg article expanded sufficiently and big enough overall. Written neutrally. Has (just) enough inline references. Article doesn't say "spectral" or "ghostly" white horse like hook says...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article doesn't refer to either the man or the horse as spectral. However, the final two sentences of that section are both questions, and questions like this have no business in an encyclopedic article. These sentences will have to be revised or removed. I also think that if there is an entire section on Hemmadhäddlers, the term needs to be explained or at least translated so readers understand what the section is about. Also, the word "flurnames" is used but not explained; it is not an English word and should be translated. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article was translated more or less one-for-one from the corresponding German article. You're correct on the lack of reference to the "Schimmelreiter" as spectral. Most Google references that turn up relate to the Theodor Storm novel or movies based on it. From what I have found he is apparently a common character in German folklore, appearing in various places around the country, but little documented. I think between the novel and the other appearances Germans would know he is spectral, but this needs to be added for English speakers. As far as the questions, these are translated directly from the German, and do emphasize the Schimmelreiter's ghostly character. I thought they were appropriate in a section about a character from folklore where the questions are part of the legend, but that' s just my opinion.

As to the Hemmadhäddlers, I was unable to find a translation. The word itself seems (to me) to be Schwäbisch. I hesitate to try to define them, they seem to be another form of boogeymen. Unlike the Schimmelreiter they may be just a local legend.

"Flurnames" is usually translated "field names", which seems to about as useful in translation as the original German Wikipedia has an article on them at Flurname. Peter Flass (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Flurname seems to be ususlly left untranslated. An interesting translatoion might be "microtoponym" - a name for a very small location. Peter Flass (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I added "spectral" to the article and converted the questions to statements. Peter Flass (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I added a citation for Pyrene (it is usually assumed to be Heuneburg rather than here, but the translated article mentions here as a possible location). By chance I watched a video that discussed it just the other day. The Oetinger citation applies to both paragraphs in the "Antiquities" section. It is ref'd in the second para. I don't know where best to put it. Peter Flass (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you translate the "flurnames" then in the article? Also, I have added two [citation needed] tags. The comment about Pyrene is pretty significant and should have some sort of supporting citation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1908

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC).

Here is my QPQ for this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Quatre Motets sur des thèmes grégoriens. Futurist110 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Will review this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Interesting facts, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. Article suggestions:
  • I made the portraits smaller. The captions should unmistakably say who is pictured, less prose. Consider to make them a gallery, because they sandwich the text.
  • The lead should summarize facts from the body, thus doesn't need refs.
  • Please read (and it's a first sentence in a section): "Although he was previously the Democratic U.S. Presidential nominee in both 1896 and 1900 (losing to William McKinley both times), Alton Parker's defeat at the hands of President Roosevelt (who succeeded McKinley after his assassination) in 1904 gave William Jennings Bryan an opening to reassert his leadership in the Democratic Party as well as to compete for the 1908 Democratic presidential nomination." That is a sentence which I'd like to see split in two or three. It takes too long until we know who is the subject, - and then not even the subject but "Alton Parker's defeat", which lets the "he" of the beginning hang in the air.
Hook: imagine readers to whom the names say nothing, and perhaps come up with a different fact. I am no friend of piping the article, in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Please allow me to address all of your concerns here. However, please give me several days. Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, take all the time you need. One more: I don't need the same ref sentence after sentence in the same paragraph. Just the hook fact needs a duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 24[edit]

Slovenian railway referendum, 2017

  • ... that Slovenian voters supported the law governing a Divača-Koper railway link upgrade in a referendum, but the turnout was low? Source: RTVSLO.si (in Slovene)

Created by Tone (talk). Self-nominated at 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new, long enough, and meets policy on neutrality, citations, and plagiarism. The content is interesting, but this interest is not reflected in the rather dull hook. The mere use of a national referendum on something mundane like a railway upgrade is worth a hook by itself, so I'd like to see a different one. QPQ has been completed. SounderBruce 00:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, it's kind of dull and uninteresting. I'll recuse myself from reviewing and offer this suggestion:
...that 20.5 percent of Slovenian voters turned in ballots for a railway referendum?
SounderBruce 00:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole referendum thing was kind of dull and uninteresting :P But sure, the suggested hook looks fine. I'd add only 20.5 percent. Tone 05:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 25[edit]

Anonimo Gaddiano

  • ... that the brief biographies of Italian artists by the Anonimo Gaddiano were written before Vasari's Lives, but not published before 1892? Source Wierda: 157, "The first part is devoted to artists from classical antiquity and the second contains the lives and works of a number of Florentine artists, from Cimabue to Michelangelo, as well as a brief survey of Sienese artists." and "At the end of the nineteenth century, annotated transcriptions

were made by Cornelius von Fabriczy (1891) and Carl Frey (1892), and a transcription with brief annotations by Annamaria Ficarra appeared in 1968" - but the Fabriczy was not published until 1893, see EL; 165: "Unfortunately for Bernardo, the appearance of Vasari’s “Vite” in 1550 rendered his “Codice” both superfluous and obsolete". 166 "He stopped work on his manuscript before January 1547"

Created by Fb2ts (talk) and Johnbod (talk). Nominated by Johnbod (talk) at 02:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

  • This is a couple of days late to be nominated, which I hope is ok. In fact almost all the writing was done within 5 days of starting. The other nom is I think new to DYK , and fairly new to editing. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The article was created on September 24, 9 days before the nomination. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed - actually just the first edit - nearly all a list - on the 24th. The text was more than x5 expanded on the 25 and subsequent days, if you want to look at it that way. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the English language Anonima Gaddiano article is currently sporting egregious inaccuracies that are pending resolution -- most notably two in the very first sentence.

1. Anonimo was used to refer to the text's alleged author by the author who is primarily quoted, one might even say paraphrased, in the Wikipedia entry. Said author (Bouk Wierda) acknowledges that they have done this, in footnote [6] of their paper, but by the end of the same paper, said author goes ahead and accepts their own hypothesis -- based on two handwriting samples (ie, the "scholarship" is a bit goofy). Meanwhile, all other texts, and indeed in the Wierda text itself, Anonimo Gaddiano is universally referred as a manuscript.

See also the entries for Anonimo Gaddiano in both the Italian and French versions (at least last time I checked).

2. Furthermore, attempts to locate the use of Anonima Fiorentina as an alternative name for the Anonimo Gaddiano manuscript comes up with only one mention (on the internet, at least), and that mention clearly states that Anonima Fiorentino is an "Augustinian".

Not only is Anonimo Gaddiano not a person, it would appear not to be a manuscript commonly referred to as Anonimo Fiorentino either. See the article's talk page.Fb2ts (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I thought we had settled this. You obviously haven't looked at the other main ref, the very reputable Dictionary of Art Historians:
"Magliabechiano, Anonimo (or Anonymo) "anonymous author of the Magliabechiano MS"
Date born: fl. 1537-42
Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541"

Anybody who was already familiar with the subject area knows that the name describes the author not the MS, though it may be used for both. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Aha! Now I see. But the article I started was for the Manuscript. I'd suggest we do a separate one for the Author, but you've put so much work into the original, it makes more sense for me to start fresh. I will start one for Anonimo Gaddiano (Manuscript).

Is there a way for you to append (Author) to the title of the article I originally started for the manuscript, not realizing that it would be interpreted as an article about the author? Fb2ts (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What on earth would be the point of that? So no. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
So you think the author deserves an article, but the manuscript doesn't? Fb2ts (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no point in 2 effectively identical articles. The article is categorized as both an MS and a person, which is fine. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This stuff largely repeats discussions on the article talk page, where there is some more. It all seems to be settled now. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Outstanding Issue Number One for Anonimo Gaddiano article

The Dictionary of Art Historians states that
Magliabechiano, Anonimo (or Anonymo) "anonymous author of the Magliabechiano MS"
The entry being discussed is for Anonimo Gaddiano, a manuscript. Not a person. If you want to say that Anonimo Gaddiano is used to refer to a person, you need to give a reputable source that does so.
If you would like to create a subheading, or an other article, to cover Anonimo Magliabechiano (in the "not to be confused with" category, then go for it. I created an article for a manuscript commonly referred as Anonimo Gaddiano. Everyplace I have come across it, including in the articles cited in the Anonimo Gaddiano article, uses the term to refer to a manuscript.
I agree that it makes sense to move this discussion to the talk page of the article itself. What's the usual procedure? Just cut and paste once first and second editors reach an agreement to do so? Fb2ts (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You have already started several sections at the article talk page, and been responded to there. I suggest you reread that page, as you are making no points that have not been asked and answered there. If you have forgotten that Anonimo Gaddiano and Anonimo Magliabechiano are exactly the same person, and manuscript by that person, then you really need to refresh. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DYK ineligible Article was not new enough nor did it receive 5x expansion at the time of nomination. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This nomination was made by a respected DYK regular, was only two days late, and considering WP:DYKSG#D9 and the backlog of 46 approved hooks waiting to be promoted, should not be rejected basted on the 48-hour time delay. New reviewer needed. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 26[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 27[edit]

Achilleas Kallakis

  • ... that Achilleas Kallakis has been called "Britain's most successful serial confidence trickster"? Source: "Britain's most successful serial confidence trickster, Achilleas Kallakis, faces up to 10 years in jail after being found guilty of duping banks out of more than £750m." (and [1] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New article and nominated within time. No plagiarism detected and the hook fact is supported by The Guardian. A QPQ is needed and the article could be expanded a little to let the readers know how he did the multi-million pound fraud and how was he caught. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Abu Huraira

The portico facade, 2010
The portico facade, 2010
  • ... that the Mausoleum of Abu Huraira has been called "one of the finest domed mausoleums in Palestine"? Source: Petersen, 2001, p. 313
    • ALT1:... that the ‘’’Mausoleum of Abu Huraira’’’, also known as the Tomb of Rabbi Gamaliel of Yavne, has been described as "one of the finest domed mausoleums in Palestine”? Source: Petersen, 2001, p. 313

Moved to mainspace by Huldra (talk) and Onceinawhile (talk). Nominated by Huldra (talk) at 22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC).


  • New enough (but please in future give date moved from draft), long enough, reads well (though a bit confusing on the actual building history, or it its early phases), AGF on hook quote. Earwig finds nothing - or rather one one source that has not been used but should be - I've added a note on the article talk. GTG - signing late. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest to wait till the RFC end to solve any NPOV issues. Shrike (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There was no icon given to the original, unsigned review, but the article should not be approved until problematic sentences like The formation of Jewish sacred place was based on the argument that many Jewish sacred burials were Islamized during history of the region. have been fixed, and the tags in the article related to the RFC have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry; that was me. It was meant to be GTG at the time, but there has been a fair deal of contentious editing since my review, including Shrike adding the sentence you have rightly highlighted as near-gibberish. Johnbod (talk)
  • Note DYK hook (and to a lesser extent the article) contains some rather strong POV language. The tomb is located within Israel proper (deep withing pre 1967 lines), and the tomb is an officially designated Jewish shrine as Rabban Gamaliel's Tomb which is also how it appears on contemporary maps. Stating the tomb has been described as one the finest in Palestine may confuse the modern reader. That this statement was made by a modern writer in 2001, is an indication of possible bias in the source chosen.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Sigh. That quote is from a Professor in Islamic Archaeology, in UK. That is about as RS as you can get. That you-don't-like-it: yeah, we get it. But unless you have a WP:RS who says that the present language is "strong POV language", then the above is just your 2 cents, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
      • RS on Islamic Archaeology perhaps (have not checked his creds). Not on geopolitics, where he may have a POV (or his original quote may have been clear in referencing the historic region, if so this has been lost in the quotation). Stating that a location in one country is in a diffrrent entity is tantamount to denying the existence of the former - which is highly POVish.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Actually, no. It is rather standard Archaeology etc, to use the name Palestine, as it has been since the 19th century. It does not refer to a country, but a region, Palestine, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
          • 1. This is not used by all authors. 2. This is improper for DYK, without context, the current quote to a reader passing by implies that this is not in Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Did you see the article it leads to, Palestine, or without piping: Palestine (region)? It clearly shows that the area includes Israel. Yes, yes, we know that some are allergic to the word "Palestine"...that doesn't mean that WP:RS are allergic to it, too. Huldra (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
              • The article is in a better state in this regard in that Israel is in the first sentence (I do however intend to expand the Jewish history and present use). The DYK text is a problem. Using a piped link to a meaning that is not the one usually used, while omitting Israel, conveys an impression to the reader that does not look at the source or click every link. This could be a very nice article and DYK if POV were not asserted.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on September 28[edit]

William Carpentier

ALT1 ... that, after Neil Armstrong returned from the Moon, he lived for three weeks with William Carpentier?
ALT2 ... that the "world famous physician" is Dr William Carpentier?

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 02:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC).

  • comment only - A hook that said that after Neil Armstrong returned from the moon he lived for 3 weeks with William Carpentier - would get more clicks. Victuallers (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC) -->
  • Symbol question.svg Nominated one day after creation, and is almost 4000 characters, satisfying length and date criteria. QPQ completed. No copyvio or POV issues detected. There are two minor issues. The first is that the article states he received the "Alumni Award of Distinction", which is not stated in the source provided; however, this link provides that info. The second issue is that the second source doesn't state he became an American citizen, only that he "remained a Canadian citizen until 1993". Is there a source for the full claim? The hooks ALT1 and ALT2 are both short enough; ALT2 is sourced, and ALT1 should probably refer to "quarantine" instead of "lived with", as the latter implies a residential arrangement. Mindmatrix 16:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: perhaps the hook could state something to the effect "...that William Carpentier was quarantined with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin after they returned from the moon?", or maybe that "...that William Carpentier was a physician to astronauts?", though there's nothing inherently wrong with the hooks you've provided, other than the tweak I noted above. Mindmatrix 16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 29[edit]

Roma Agrawal

Measuring just over a thousand feet, the Shard is the tallest building in the UK
Measuring just over a thousand feet, the Shard is the tallest building in the UK
  • ... that Roma Agrawal played with LEGO and then designed both the tip and bottom of the Shard (pictured)?

Created by Jesswade88 (talk) and Zeromonk (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 18:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Timing OK, long enough, no copyvio or plagiarism. Unfortunately the information from the hook doesn't seem to be contained in the article-- or at least, the hook seems to suggest she played with Lego to design the Shard; but the article suggests she played with Lego as a child and then some decades later designed the Shard. Can you rework to make that clearer? Otherwise it's a great little tidbit, and the rest of the article is good to go! Owlsmcgee (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that after playing with LEGO as a child, Roma Agrawal designed both the tip and bottom of the Shard (pictured)? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The wording of ALT1 seems fine but I'd prefer that we only link to the subject. LEGO is quite famous already and so doesn't need a link. Andrew D. (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 1[edit]

Glauben können wie du

Schlegel in 2017
Schlegel in 2017
  • Reviewed: Matt Page (artist)
  • Comment: We might say that the song was later made part of an oratorio for which he wrote the libretto but would prefer to stick with its content. In October please. Dedicated (in retrospect) to the memory of Allen3, who was asked to resign after he was unafraid and promoted an Easter hymn with a funny hook to the main page.

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 07:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and has no copyright problems as far as I can see. The hook however is difficult to interpret. How about - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for trying, however I think "yearning" is too strong, and virtue is not in the article, intentionally so. It's more looking at a model, an attitude, - perhaps you can make something along those lines? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I like it but miss "lyrics", - I found no room to mention the swinging melody by Raabe, but it sounds now as if Schlegel created all of the hymn. Perhaps drop "hymn" at all? not an attractive word I guess. - I removed a comma.
ALT3 ... that "Glauben können wie du" by Helmut Schlegel (pictured) is addressed to Mary, and relates to her examplary faith, hope and love? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 4[edit]

NUDE

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 20:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg TonyTheTiger, QPQ needed. Otherwise new, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out, neutral any no apparent copyvios. Earwig shows that a chunk of text from the "Cast" section is taken directly from the website, but this is a list where rewriting would accomplish little, and it is cited with both an inline attribution and an inline citation. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm afraid not. You did not do a full review, and that is what is required. Please provide a QPQ that is a full review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Pavement light

Light shines up from inside the hollow sidewalk
Light shines up from inside the hollow sidewalk
Light shines up from inside the hollow sidewalk
Light shines up from inside the hollow sidewalk
A sidewalk basement lit by sunlight
A sidewalk basement lit by sunlight
  • ... that the purple jewels set into old sidewalks are vault lights; they light a room inside the hollow sidewalk? Source: [3]
  • Reviewed: Benty Grange helmet, nematophagous fungus
  • Comment: I have a very suitable image promised by the photographer.

Created/expanded by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 02:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting article, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. - Sorry for reducing an image to be compatible with mobile devices ;) - I am afraid I'll request more work on images: they should not "sandwich" text between them. Please consider to keep only the most essential ones with the text, dropping others or placing them in the gallery. References: please don't leave any "bare urls" but provide title, publisher, author if known, date if known, accessdate for web, other info for books. I recommend cite templates. Look at any of my articles for examples. - The hook: sorry I don't understand "the purple jewels set into old sidewalks" nor "a room inside the hollow sidewalk". Can you word something as one question, without a semi-colon? - Enough much for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Belated thanks, Gerda Arendt. I've improved the article along the lines you suggested, but it still needs more work. Here are two alternate images; I favour the first one. "Jewels" is apparently one of the terms for the glass bits; I used it because I thought it evocative. Here's another possible hook, which manages to integrate European and American usage:
Thank you. Let me understand if I understand, we take the second image and could say
ALT4: ... that the purple "jewels" (pictured) in old sidewalks are pavement lights for daylighting a vault inside?
I think we need a different caption, though, mentioning "purple". - The references and images are much improved, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
How about an image caption that says "Light from inside the hollow sidewalk shines up through purple sidewalk prisms?" Prism lighting is also a new article, so it might be nice to work it in. Some installations honestly bend the light 90 degrees, to the near-horizontal, and send it right under the building, to light the whole basement; I"ll add images to the article gallery. I'm unsure about whether "vault" will convey the right impression to everyone, there are some dialect differences here. Comments welcome.
ALT5: ... that the purple "jewels" (pictured) in old sidewalks are pavement lights, which bend light through a hollow sidewalk, to daylight the basement?
Ian Macky helped a lot with improving the article, and Graeme Bartlett came and fixed my borked references. Not to mention your help, Gerda. Thank you all. I still have some work to do, though. HLHJ (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

  • I have reservations. I assume the author means well, but inclusion of this term on the front page of Wikipedia would be extremely disruptive to the business of getting an encyclopedia built, and could have the unintended consequence of causing Wikipedia to be inaccessible to users who are forced to go through content filters, such as schools. For some topics, this may be good practice. But weighing the cost for the benefit, I have to wonder if this is appealing to much beyond a prurient interest. Would the hook be interesting if not for the shock factor? If not, then I'd say it's gratuitous. Is there a way to rewrite the hook in a way that doesn't hold such potential to be disruptive? The articles themselves have very little information about these locations aside from the use of this word in their names, and just barely meet the length criteria for a DYK article. Might I propose something like: ... that in New Zealand, the original place names of Tawhal Hill, Kanuka Hill, and Pūkio Stream all included a racial slur? Owlsmcgee (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, works of literature are covered under WP:Notcensored in my understanding, as are articles intended to create a better understanding of things we deem offensive. Nonetheless, there is also WP:NOTFREESPEECH. We're not engaged in a discussion of the three articles' right to exist (I am in favor), but only whether they should be synthesized and promoted on the front page of Wikipedia, despite its considerable potential to create a disruptive environment and an unwelcoming environment for editors of color. Your article is not being censored, by any means. Whether it should be promoted is another discussion, and one I hope other editors will weigh in on, but I'd also say this fits under WP:Offensive material, in particular: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Inclusion of a racial slur in a DYK does not, in my opinion, increase the quality of the articles you created, and the inclusion of a racial slur, when other words can be substituted, does not make Wikipedia more informative, relevant, or accurate. I believe a suitable alternative is possible, and I hope you will work with me to come to a consensus on an ALT wording of your hook. Thank you for tolerating my concerns! -Owlsmcgee (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Under WP:DYKHOOK, the hook must be "hooky". I feel that in using the other names it doesn't draw people in as much as the former names do. Also it isn't promoting those names, the hook clearly portrays them in a negative light which is right to do. But it would make people want to read about why and the change was made and the process about it. I am treating it encyclopedic as I feel that not including them also make it less informative as these are historic names that only got changed last year after 150ish years of bearing that name. I still prefer to use the originals as I feel it is the best hook that balances the names and public opinion on them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't see what the issue is. There have been a few other instances of Nigger being on the main page as I recall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I, too, have reservations; The C of E is no stranger to hooks with this kind of shock value and potential controversy and the subsequent resistance to their use. Using the word "Nigger", bolded, three times in a single hook is akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull, and completely unnecessary as well as inappropriate. The following hook would still be interesting, if far less controversial:
  • No, I don't like that s its a bit dull unless you explain what the "racially offensive" word was. I think we should still use the original. Or at least do this compromise: ALT2... that New Zealand's recently renamed Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills and Pūkio Stream use Māori-based names to replace ones based on the word "Nigger"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Support the proposed ALT2. The original seems a little overboard, but we should not avoid the offensive term entirely. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I support the proposed ALT1. It is, in fact, a more intriguing hook, since it leaves some mystery to be looked into. bd2412 T 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger I've done a formal review and it all checks out, QPQ, timing, length, no copyvio or other plagiarism detected. The articles seem to give undue weight to the ethnically dubious etymology of the place names, but that will be handled by the discussion I presume. Anyway, now I am just waiting on a consensus to emerge on that discussion over at WT:DYK#Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook. I've stated my concern and am giving others room to speak on the issue. Owlsmcgee (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I will echo here what NewYorkBrad has said in the discussion at WP:DYK. The proposed hook should not be used. bd2412 T 02:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. This should not be used. SarahSV (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the history of the N-word (and F-word) on the main page. I recall The Motherfucker with the Hat being on the main page in uncensored form. I seem to remember a book or manual with the N-word on the main page. I am not a fan of the N-word, but support consistency in employing censorship (or not employing it). I am aware main page standards are changing because I have seen tags put on two of my main page entries in the last month, so maybe I need to catch up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not a question of conforming to past behavior, but advocacy of a course of action that is either maliciously provocative or completely ignorant. Either way, this should lead to DYK topic bans all around for its advocates. bd2412 T 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • BD2412, LOL. Let me get this straight. If I express an opinion different from yours, I should be topic banned? There is an ongoing unresolved debate going on you know. It is possible that there might be a cogent argument that you have not thought of. (The LOL is in no way related to the subject, just the immaturity of someone who thinks anyone who disagrees with them should be topic banned.)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
        • This is not expressing a different opinion, this is either straight-up GNAA-style trolling, or falling for such trolling. It is exhibiting so complete an absence of the editorial judgment as to make continued access to the main page untenable. bd2412 T 21:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To prevent confusion between The C of E's original ALT2 and Jo-Jo Eumerus's new ALT2, I have changed the latter to "ALT2.5" and adjusted Abyssal's comment accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The slur is not part of the title. There is no legitimate editorial need to include it in the hook at all. bd2412 T 19:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And since when is the hooked fact supposed to be part of the title of the article? --Khajidha (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The hooked fact is that the names "contained a racial slur"; there is no legitimate editorial need to include the actual slur. bd2412 T 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • How about ALT4: ... that New Zealand recently renamed Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills and Pūkio Stream from names containing a racially offensive term? bd2412 T 19:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I am withdrawing my proposed ALT4 in favor of endorsing ALT1, which has the same effect. bd2412 T 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The article needs to be rewritten. It's currently just 277 words readable prose size, yet it contains the n-word nine times in the text/infobox and three in the references. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Word count doesn't matter, it's character count that does according to the DYK rules. The Royal C (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The Royal C, that wasn't the point I was making. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am a bit curious on whether a subject can be made notable only for the fact that its name was controversial. I don't actually believe that any of these articles would really survive an AFD. They are just Hills that all were renamed after a bit of controversy. There is no encyclopedic content on any of the hills.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Tony, I agree. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • They could reasonably be merged into Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography. bd2412 T 21:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
        • That would be better. SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Proposed, at Talk:Canterbury, New Zealand#Proposed merge. bd2412 T 22:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
            • I think that is a bit of a back-door deletion. I think it would be fairer to have a full deletion discussion about all of the options at WP:AFD. Possible outcomes include merge, but we should not open the discussion with that as the only alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
              • I have no inherent objection to that course of action, but I think it would inevitably be a slower and more involved process. bd2412 T 22:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
                • I think it is the proper process. We never want to just excise content on WP. Almost anything but a WP:CSD should remain an open debate for a week anyways. I am hoping someone else will administer to the nomination, but if not, I'll get to it in a couple of hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Putting the nomination on hold per DYK rules until the AfD has closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 5[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 6[edit]

International Harp Archive

A Lyon & Healy harp in the archive.
A Lyon & Healy harp in the archive.

Created by JAGrace (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC).

Review

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - The first hook won't do, as explained above. ALT1 is ok
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Andrew D. (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Thank you for your review. I made some changes to the International Harp Archive page. If you would go ahead and check out the page I would appreciate it. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thanks! JAGrace (BYU) (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above

Martin Luther
Martin Luther
  • ... that "Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above", originally in German as "Vater unser im Himmelreich", by Martin Luther (pictured) and translated in 1863 was one of the more aggressive hymns that challenged Catholic teaching during the Reformation? Source: The Sound of Light: A History of Gospel and Christian Music. Hal Leonard Corporation. p. 28. ISBN 063402938X.

Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC).

Comment: I don't understand how Luther wrote anything in English. Please clarify. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean Vater unser im Himmelreich? I'd suggest you expand that article with what concerns Luther, and reserve the one in English for Winkworth's translation and others, and their position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It has been clarified now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You mean by saying that it was in German originally? Not enough. No original title, no link to the existing article, and no reason to say similar things in both articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
ps: the hook also doesn't work, because the the hymn was not even translated at the time of the Reformation. No English hymn was more or less aggressive then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
IT is in the original that it is referencing which has now been mentioned in the hook as you requested. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear enough. The English (translated) hymn didn't exist until 1863. It was nothing at the time of the Reformation, 500 years ago. You cannot speak about it in historic context before that, - it's misleading. Expect a merge request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You can if its in relation to the original text which was translated. I have further clarified it for a future reviewer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Some may think they can, - I can't. I can't write Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman. If you look at our featured article about the composer, it's free from such a nonsense claim. You can imitate that quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Catherine Winkworth wrote the hymn "Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above", translating "Vater unser im Himmelreich" by Martin Luther (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Striking the original hook, which at 229 characters excluding "(pictured)" is far too long for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am trying to get some form of Reformation reference in as that is why I requested for the 500th anniversary. I have reworded the original here and hope this is sufficient. ALT2... that "Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above" was translated from a German language hymn by Martin Luther (pictured), which was one of his hymns that challenged Catholic teaching in the Reformation? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you want to focus on "aggressive" that day. My idea is the opposite. - I still think the article should be part of the one about Luther's hymn, or be about the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to focus on aggressive, I wanted to focus more on the Reformation hence why I wanted the hook to include it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 7[edit]

Fayoum Light Railway

Transport of the fossils of Wal­ter Grangers Fayoum Expedition, 1907
Transport of the fossils of Wal­ter Grangers Fayoum Expedition, 1907

5x expanded by NearEMPTiness (talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC). Sorry: I had inadvertantly entered this nomination into the section of "Articles created/expanded on October 14" and subsequently removed it at 04:54 on 15 October 2017.NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Although it would see this could be easily expanded past its current length, it is long enough, new enough, well cited (spotted), comes up clean in CYK Check and downright interesting for railfans. Strongly prefer ALT0. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 8[edit]

St Stephen's Church, Ealing

St Stephen's Church in Ealing
St Stephen's Church in Ealing

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image is acceptably licensed, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The hook facts are correct and cited inline, but I think the hook is misleading, because the bells were not moved because of the complaints but because the building was unsafe. I also think you should mention the building's closure and replacement in the history section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. And it seems that:
ALT1 ... that the bells of St Stephen's in Ealing (pictured) were so loud it prompted comments about "what might almost be termed cruelty"?
...is more "hooky". As above, article is good to go, we just need to agree on a hook. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a crop of the image might be useful too. The right side is mostly redundant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the right hand side shows the current church while the large stone building on the left is the former church building now converted into flats, as explained in the article. The mature trees rather get in the way of all this but that is the nature of the setting. I'll give some more thought to the hook. ALT1 doesn't flow well currently. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on October 9[edit]

Nagtahan Interchange

The Nagtahan Interchange in 2014
The Nagtahan Interchange in 2014
  • ... that the Rotonda de Sampaloc, now the Nagtahan Interchange, originally demarcated the boundary between Manila's suburbs and its urban core? Source: "Straddling the boundary between Sampaloc, San Miguel and Santa Mesa, the interchange was originally known as the Rotonda de Sampaloc, a roundabout which at the turn of the 20th century marked the boundary between Manila's urban core and its suburbs." (1)
  • Reviewed: Doing...

Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self-nominated at 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

Knave-Go-By

Created by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk). Self-nominated at 23:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC).

  • @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Is there any reason for the way you've chosen to spell the article title? From what I can see the sources either refer to the village as "Knave Go By" (capitalised) or "Knave-go-by" (with hyphens). 97198 (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have changed the article title to "Knave-Go-By" to reflect what is used by the Ordance Survey (the most reliable source for current UK place names). Originally I just created it from a redlink on the list of places in Cornwall, where it was without hyphens. 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - The hook's wording seems vague enough to cover the different accounts but should be revisited after another round of work on the sources.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg Andrew D. (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @Andrew Davidson: Realistically the sources in the article are all I could find on the internet, I suppose some of the suppositions presented in the article could be qualified with constructs like "<person> said in ### that a version of the story widely held to be true by locals is....<insert version here>. -ref-", some advice on this would be appreciated. I put this forward because it is interesting (and the last village redlink in Cornwall to be done) so I thought it would be a good 'did you know' article. Dysklyver 19:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: I looked for sources myself and agree that it's difficult to find them. There are some extensive accounts of Wesley's activities in Cornwall, e.g The Wesleys in Cornwall, 1743–1789 but they don't seem to have anything specific. I'll take another look after this further round of work and see if we're there yet. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

AirTrain JFK

An AirTrain vehicle
An AirTrain vehicle
  • ... that before New York City's AirTrain JFK airport rail link was approved in 1995, there had been 21 unsuccessful proposals for direct rail links to New York-area airports? Source: NY Times 1997 "The 8.4-mile project is about a quarter the price of a proposed 22-mile railway linking Manhattan, Kennedy and La Guardia airports that was deemed too costly in 1995, one of 21 proposals that have stalled over the years."
    • ALT A:... that before the 1995 approval of AirTrain JFK, an airport rail link in New York City, there had been 21 unsuccessful proposals for direct rail links to New York-area airports? Source: Same as the main proposed hook
    • ALT1:... that AirTrain JFK, an airport rail link entirely within the New York City borough of Queens, was based on a canceled plan for a one-seat ride to Manhattan? Source: NY Times 1995. "Plans for a rail system linking the two Queens airports and Manhattan have been dead since May. Now, as the Port Authority presses forward with plans for a 7.5 mile monorail connecting the terminals at Kennedy International Airport to the Howard Beach station on the A subway line, community leaders are rethinking their positions."
      Also NY Times 1997: "After nearly 30 years of bickering, false starts and failed attempts to build a rail system linking New York City and its airports, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Gov. George E. Pataki have agreed on a scaled-down connection to Kennedy International Airport from the train station in Jamaica, Queens, both officials announced yesterday."
    • ALT2:... that AirTrain JFK, an airport rail link in New York City, took almost 30 years to plan? Source: NY Times 1997. "After nearly 30 years of bickering..." and "The 8.4-mile project is about a quarter the price of a proposed 22-mile railway linking Manhattan, Kennedy and La Guardia airports that was deemed too costly in 1995, one of 21 proposals that have stalled over the years."
  • Comment: I will do a QPQ later.

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 21:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Substantial, well-researched Good article, no copyvio obvious. Just qpq missing, and biblio 8 and 9 are not used. The image is licensed and would draw more attention to a fine article. I like ALT2 best, short and sweet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 10[edit]

County courthouses in New Jersey

Essex County Courthouse
Essex County Courthouse

Created by Djflem (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg @Djflem: Nominated for DYK two days after creation. This article is currently too short to satisfy DYK length criteria - it has just over 1000 bytes of prose, which is 500 bytes short of the requirement of 1500, as tables and lists are not considered when determining the length of the article (see WP:DYKRULES, points 2b and 2c). Several of the sources used are simply landing pages for the site or subsite in question. For example, ref 2 and ref 3 don't have much (if any) prose, and have a list of entries, which don't match the text of the article. (In particular, the text: "Each county has its own courthouse, and some counties have different facilities for different divisions, such as the criminal, civil, family, and finance courts.") The hook is suitably short with references, but it's not particularly interesting. I suggest expanding the article with something interesting about one or two of the courthouses from the list, for example the oldest one, or one which may have been controversial for some reason. As an example, I see that the second Bergen County Court House was burned by the British during the Revolutionary War in 1780, and that the Hunterdon County Courthouse was site of the Trial of the century. I'm sure there's plenty more material from which to draw to expand this article and find a much more interesting hook. Mindmatrix 23:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 11[edit]

Eleri Rees

  • ... that Eleri Rees became a judge without ever practising as a barrister? Source: "I have had a fairly unusual career route from justices' clerk to the bench. Like many of my generation, I found it very difficult to get pupillage and so started working for the magistrates' courts service." [6]
    • ALT1:... that Eleri Rees is a British judge who began her career as a justices' clerk rather than a barrister?

Created by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk). Self-nominated at 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Boiled leather

Boiled leather pickelhaube
Boiled leather pickelhaube

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

Review

General eligiblity:

  • New Enough: Red XN - The assessment of the DYKcheck took is that it's gone from 810 to 3771 which isn't quite 5x
Ok, will add. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Red XN - The picture captions could use some citations. For example, there's an unsourced quotation in one case.
Most of them are Metropolitan Museum of Art releases with museum metadata on the picture file, including that quotation. I think that's enough, no? Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - The timing seems debatable as the pickelhaube article says that steel started to be used in 1915 and that leather wasn't fully phased out until 1918.
"Beginning in 1916, the Pickelhaube was slowly replaced by a new German steel helmet (the Stahlhelm) intended to offer greater head protection from shell fragments." is what it says. I've read more on this, & will dig it out. 1916 still seems to be the right date for the general introduction. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting: Red XN - I reckon there are better possibilities such as the bit about eating your armour or the even later use by firemen.
The article wording tiptoes around the fact that the historic sources don't actually specify that the leather eaten was cuir bouilli, though they probably were - a general issue in writing about the stuff. It would be difficult to word a hook though. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg It's a good topic but some issues, as noted above. Andrew D. (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 12[edit]

The Black Swan, Oldstead

The Black Swan in Oldstead
The Black Swan in Oldstead

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk) and Hzh (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 18:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Current nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on October 13[edit]

Immigration Museum of the State of São Paulo, Immigration Inn

The Museum in 2017
The Museum in 2017

Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

Both articles created on October 13.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Immigration Museum of the State of São Paulo is sufficiently long, but Immigrant Inn is not currently 1500 characters (1276 characters)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Only 1 QPQ review has been mentioned above. 2 are needed for this multi-article hook, if the nomination continues to include both articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hook is brief enough and interesting enough.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 14[edit]

Gloria (Rutter)

  • ... that Gloria was John Rutter's first commission from the United States, setting the sacred text as a concert piece in three movements for choir, brass, percussion and organ? Source: several
    • ALT1:... that the three movements of John Rutter's Gloria were described as "exalted, devotional and jubilant"? Source: described by the composer, but critics agree

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Turning to the hook, how do we know it was Rutter's first commission from the United States? I see the article states "his first premiere in the United States", but that is not quite the same thing. If you preferred the other hook, it would be better expressed as ALT1a because he used the phrase himself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1a:... that John Rutter described the three movements of his Gloria as "exalted, devotional and jubilant"?
Well, that is saying rather little. He also said "represented a milestone in my career because it was the first major commission I had received from overseas."
ALT2: ... that Gloria was John Rutter's first major commission from the United States, setting the sacred text as a concert piece in three movements for choir, brass, percussion and organ?
ALT3: ... that on a commission from the United States, John Rutter composed Gloria as a concert piece in three movements for choir, brass, percussion and organ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 15[edit]

Den Herren will ich loben

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 13:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC).

Vector General

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

Ballot laws of the Roman Republic

Romans casting a ballot
Romans casting a ballot
  • Reviewed: Not necessary (this is my 2nd DYK nomination), but I'll do one anyways when I have time

Source: "The Lex Gabinia of 139 introduced for the first time secret ballot into elections; there followed a series of laws extending this right — the Lex Cassia of 137 about non-capital prosecution, the Lex Papiria of 131 about legislation and the Lex Coelia of 107 about capital prosecutions." (Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd Edition, Volume IX, p.45)

Created/expanded by Bowlhover (talk). Self-nominated at 08:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

Teté Puebla

  • Reviewed: QPQ done here.

Created by A Train (talk). Self-nominated at 10:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting life, on good sources, Spanish sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. What do you think of also saying that she is a member of parliament? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
A great suggestion, Gerda Arendt. See the new ALT3 above. A Traintalk 10:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Fine, now some polishing: can we avoid Cuba twice? (If not, at least the second one without link.) It may be a silly question: are you General for life? Or "became the first ...". Out for the day, but I guess no rush, just don't think I', ignoring you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 16[edit]

Kia Steave-Dickerson

Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

    • ALT1':... that Kia Steave-Dickerson was described as "the funk diva" by M. Night Shyamalan for her work in his films?Source: Her behind-the-scenes work drew the attention of Academy Award-nominated director M. Night Shyamalan, who called Steave-Dickerson "the funk diva." In the book "Trading Spaces Behind the Scenes," he said "She makes our movie sets more vibrant with her exotic electricity." Steave-Dickerson happy at 'Trading Spaces'

Created by Aoba47 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC).

William Smellie (obstetrician)

  • ... that ... there are many controversies surrounding William Smellie's medical and educational pursuits and some historians believe he even used illegal methods to obtain corpses. (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

5x expanded by Scarycheerio123 (talk) and BaiCaiXue (talk). Nominated by Scarycheerio123 (talk) at 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

  • This article was created by students for a Spring 2017 course, but the nomination was never transcluded on the DYK nominations page (see WT:DYK#Untranscluded nominations). I have improved the referencing and am submitting an alt hook for consideration. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Place D'Youville (Quebec)

5x expanded by Jon Kolbert (talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Accounting for the removal of copypasted text, this article satisfies the 5x expansion criteria and was nominated within the one-week requirement. QPQ is in progress. The first paragraph in "Redevelopment" needs a citation, per WP:DYKSG rule D2. Does "Attention turned towards..." refer to global media, Canadian media, or Quebec/local media? Parts of the second and third paragraphs of "Redevelopment" appear to be direct translations of the source text, or very close to it; please rephrase these, as they represent close paraphrasing. You also translated "ampleur" as "amplified", whereas in my opinion "numerous" would be more appropriate in this case. "...by the year 1993..." should be just "...1993...". I think it's worth mentioning who the outsiders were. Other than these issues, the article is sourced and written in a neutral tone. At 199 characters, the hook is lengthy but within the acceptable range, and is sourced. I think a shorter, catchier hook may get more views. I've also amended the original hook as ALT1, which is slightly shorter but does not change any aspect of the hook; what do you think of it? Mindmatrix 15:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that rioting following the 1996 Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations at Place D'Youville in Quebec City caused around $1 million CAD in damages to shops and the National Assembly of Quebec?

Phantom Blood

A photograph of the sculpture Apollo and Daphne, depicting one woman and one man.
A photograph of the sculpture Apollo and Daphne, depicting one woman and one man.

Improved to Good Article status by IDV (talk). Nominated by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) at 13:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

  • What stood out to me as I researched the series and wrote the article was definitely the Apollo and Daphne influence you mentioned. It's unusual and interesting, and it's what Hirohiko Araki's art is well-known for.--IDVtalk 13:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Architecture of Seattle

Interior of the Duwamish Longhouse, Seattle
Interior of the Duwamish Longhouse, Seattle
  • Comment: This has been a long time as a draft. User:Bri requested that it be moved to main space. I (Jmabel) might have held off a bit longer, but since it's been moved, a DYK is now or never, so I'm requesting one.

Created by Jmabel (talk). Self-nominated at 03:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Comment I don't see any good way to work the title of this particular article into the hook without making the hook clunky, but I'm open to ideas.
  • I've now reviewed Burebista. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You will have to bold something, and don't think you can bold the whole piped phrase. How about this:
ALT1: ... that several buildings in Seattle deliberately evoke traditional regional Native American architecture (example pictured)? - I am willing to review, but have no time right now, perhaps later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I looked at the other four, but think this one is best in small size. Now review:
Symbol question.svg Substantial article, with more than 100 good references, and well illustrated. Hook interesting, and with a good licensed image. Article: we'll have to look at different aspects.
  • We should normally have only information in the lead that is a summary of facts in the body, then the lead doesn't need any citation. Please move them to the facts below.
    • That is by no means a universal. Seattle and San Francisco (Featured Articles) don't follow that approach, nor does London, a Good Article. And those are literally the first 3 FA/GAs I could find when I went to check this out. (Ditto for New York City, but it's not an FA/GA. - Jmabel | Talk 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not happy with the long captions in the galleries. You could do two things: make the images larger, or organize images and commentary horizontally, as for example here.
    • The example you link seems to have an awful lot of white space. - Jmabel | Talk 15:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer the more general section about architects more at the beginning, - was quite surprised that it came after all ;)
    • Done. - Jmabel | Talk 15:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have never seen references and links to Wikimedia within a section, - wonder what other think about that.
    • That was someone other than me making notes for article expansion. As I said, a couple of us were working on this as a draft & someone more or less unilaterally moved it to article space. - Jmabel | Talk 15:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the detailed lists should even go to a separate article. Enough for now, I guess? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanations and action. What do you think of a completely different lead, more a summary than detailed the recent expansions, and getting a "citation needed" for it. I tried to help by saying the lead normally is summary without citation. Can't approve with that tag, DYK? (FAs I know (not by me, but four different main authors) are for examples Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 (one ref, for a quote), Columbia River and Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart), and I like their clean looks.) - The horizontal arrangement is also not by me, and your captions are long, so would not create much white space. It was just one idea, because - have you seen it on a small screen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 17[edit]

Cranston Public Library

William Hall Branch, Cranston Public Library
William Hall Branch, Cranston Public Library
  • ... that in 1972, the board of the Cranston Public Library voted to adopt restricted library cards? Source: [9] "the trustees of the Cranston Public Library adopted a policy which gives parents the opportunity to restrict their child's use of the library."

Created by Dlestre19 (talk) and Megalibrarygirl (talk). Nominated by 78.26 (talk) at 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Substantial article, many details on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Sorry, I am not happy with hook and image. The hook sounds "restricted", - the aspect of protecting minors comes only when you read very far in the article. How about something about the branches, showing the spectacular image? Any of the lead facts about notability, such as the efforts countering unemployment? Or the books delivered to homes? - Article cosmetics (suggestions, not needed to get approval): The lead should be a summary of the body, so please have everything also below, and then remove the references. I never need more than 3 refs for one fact. If there are more than one, they look neater when in ascending order ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see there's no image, but could be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Stephanie Amiel

Created by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk). Self-nominated at 15:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg article is confirmed as new and long enough, no obvious copyvio, the hook is okay, not going to set the world on fire, but I struggled to find anything else in the reasonably sparse CV here to find anything more fascinating. Maybe we could design an ALT hook which shows just how long she's been going at diabetes research? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Odontomachus pseudobauri

Odontomachus pseudobauri head
Odontomachus pseudobauri head
  • ... that the ant Odontomachus pseudobauri (pictured) was bought from an amber dealer in Basel, Switzerland? Source: "A. (accession in this paper)(Fig. 2) purchased in Basel by Cesare Baroni Urbani from Mrs. Edith Bloch of the "The Amber Collection" of Puerto Plata" (DeAndrade, 1994 pg. 3)

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 04:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 18[edit]

Wrangell Bombardment

View of Fort Wrangell under construction in background, Stikine in foreground, 1868
View of Fort Wrangell under construction in background, Stikine in foreground, 1868
  • ... that the first execution in Alaska by US authorities took place in 1869, the accused Stikine man surrendering to the US army as a result of the Wrangell Bombardment? Source: This execution was also the first instance of capital punishment carried out in Alaska, see R. Michael Wilson, Legal Executions in Alaska and Hawaii: A Comprehensive Registry (n.p., R. Michael Wilson, 2011)."[10], as well as table 2 in [11]

Created by Icewhiz (talk). Self-nominated at 08:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Comment (since this will be asked) - Earwig's Copyvio highest score mostly jumps for a attributed quotation of a short US army letter (which I believe is in the public domain, and is in any event attributed). Other than that (less significant matches) - it is names, jargon, locations, dates, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cynthia B. Lee

  • ... that computer science lecturer Cynthia B. Lee wrote guidelines for Stanford computer science professors to help their communities be more inclusive? Source: "Professor Cynthia Bailey Lee outlined a list of “inclusive community” guidelines for computer science instructors to consider while preparing this year’s class curriculum" Daily Wire article
    • ALT1:... that Cynthia B. Lee, a lecturer of computer science at Stanford, "ladysplained" why she found the Google memo offensive? Source: Headline: "I'm a woman in computer science. Let me ladysplain the Google memo to you." Vox

Created by Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 17:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, length, hook, age, and everything else checks out; I would be fine with either of the proposed hooks being selected for the main page. My only question is about the first hook. Do you think that there should be clarity on the "to help their communities be more inclusive" part? My first question when reading the hook was who is this being more inclusive towards? After reading the article, I understand now that it is based on gender, but maybe some revision to make this idea clearer would be helpful. I could be reading too much into it though so apologies if that is the case. Otherwise, great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 19[edit]

Hydrogen-deficient star

  • Comment: My first DYK nomination

Created/expanded by Mark viking (talk). Self-nominated at 23:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Nominated within one week of creation and at over 6500 bytes easily satisfies the length criterion. QPQ does not appear to be required; QPQ check finds no previous notices, and the user's talk page history does not have any entries by DYK bots. Regarding references: are refs 2 and 6 the same, or did you provide an incorrect link for ref 6? (I get the same article when following the links.) Given that, I can't find "helium flash" info in the current ref6 (ie ref 2) for low-mass supergiants, nor the info cited to ref 6 in "Formation and evolution". Is there a better markup or notation for ions; on my browser, "HeII" appears as "Hell" (as in "fire and brimstone"). I assume the final sentence ("The double degenerate scenario provides a better fit to the observational data") is based on the second paragraph of "Concluding remarks" from the source. I am assuming good faith for sources I cannot access (refs 1, 3, 5). Regarding the hooks, is "exist" appropriate here? If I've read the sources correctly, astronomers generally agreed that the discovered stars existed, but didn't believe they were of a different class (ie - hydrogen-deficient). Have I read this incorrectly? Mindmatrix 16:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year

Usain Bolt in 2012
Usain Bolt in 2012
  • ... that Usain Bolt (pictured) and Roger Federer have won the Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year a record four times each since its inception in 2000? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

5x expanded by The Rambling Man (talk). Self-nominated at 21:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

GRIM test

  • ... that the GRIM test revealed multiple errors in research from the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab? Source: "Anaya, along with Brown and Tim van der Zee, a graduate student at Leiden University, also in the Netherlands, wrote a paper pointing out the 150 or so GRIM inconsistencies in those four Italian-restaurant papers that Wansink co-authored." (link)
    • ALT1:... that a GRIM test on a sample of published psychology articles revealed that over half of them contained at least one mathematically impossible result? Source: "Of the articles that we could test with the GRIM technique (N = 71), around half (N = 36) appeared to contain at least one inconsistent mean, and more than 20% (N = 16) contained multiple such inconsistencies." (link)

Created by Smurrayinchester (talk). Self-nominated at 14:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Miroslav Komárek

  • ... that Czech linguist Miroslav Komárek spent his entire six-decade academic career at Palacký University in Olomouc? Source: Hirschová (1994): "Po promoci začal působit na na FF UP a této instituci zůstal věrný celý svůj profesionální život." = After graduation he began to work at FF UP (= Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Palackého = Faculty of Arts at Palacký University) and stayed loyal to this institution for his entire professional life // Janečka (2014) p100: "Miroslav Komárek zůstal věrný olomoucké filozofické fakultě více než šest desetiletí" = Miroslav Komárek stayed loyal to the Faculty of Arts in Olomouc for more than six decades.

Created by Filelakeshoe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on October 20[edit]

Minori Suzuki (2nd nomination)

Moved to mainspace by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC).

Special occasion holding area[edit]

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

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.
Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.