Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status
There is currently 1 filled queue. Assistance in moving preps is requested.
DYK is running 24-hour sets. There are currently 6 empty slots in the preps, not counting the bottom prep.
Bringing this up again as there wasn't a response the last time I brought this up. There was interest in running a Philippines-related set on June 12. Is there still interest in doing so, ala the July 4 set for the US? June 12 is just over a month away, so time is running out if we still want to do this or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but as items for the set are approved they should be placed in the SOHA so they are there for promoters' awareness in advance of 12 June. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already wrote one somewhere (I need to find it). At one point, I was writing one article per day and just saved them here and there. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I know Pbritti was interested in contributing: maybe he can also give some ideas? I'm also thinking of finding a Filipino Japanese personality who I could bring to DYK, but the ones I'm thinking of already have articles, and bringing them to GA especially in time would be impractical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can leave the exact hook wordings to you, but taking a look at the article, one thing that immediately stands out was that he was inspired to get into science when his local community mistook jet contrails as signs of the end of the world. I'm not sure how to word that exactly, but I think that's a promising angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting. It occurs to me that I can knock at least a few more, including one about Filipinos in Hawaii, perhaps something obscure and unknown, or not. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Thank you. In the meantime, you can nominate the article for DYK, and perhaps discuss more hook wordings there. Time is rather short so the nomination needs to be done as soon as possible so it wouldn't be rejected on technical grounds. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can have an article on Tom Pritchard, a West Indies-born transiently-American naturalized-Filipino credited with popularizing boxing and southern fried chicken in the Philippines, done in a week or two. 1brianm7 (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. Some craziness with a recent move has occurred, but I plan to have it done no later than than two weeks before June 12. I have a start of a draft at Draft:Tom Pritchard (chef), and it will eventually be moved to mainspace as Tom Pritchard (restaurateur). I have gotten a bunch of sources at WP:RX, reading all of them, and some advice on copyright at Commons. Speaking on Viriditas' point, I think it'd be easier to start with an article on him. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for assisting, as mentioned above. I have a few days next week where I can devote a couple hours to something Filipino. I'll probably do a plant of some sort, but I can be directed towards something else if someone can point me towards the relevant sourcing. Thanks for the ping, Narutolovehinata5! Subscribing to this discussion here; ping me if it moves elsewhere. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A thought also came to my mind: given the reception to the William and Mary College set, and how one of its complaints was that most of the hooks mentioned the college by name, is it necessary to mention the Philippines explicitly in every hook? We could also try doing something like the Papua New Guinea set where the selection and hook variety seemed more natural. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some will and some won't (the two currently approved don't explicitly name the Philippines). I think it will work out. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've said before that if we want one of these themed sets, we should add a final "... that the above hooks concerning _______ are taken from Wikipedia's newest content?" (or something along those lines). Heck, I think we should have a more general form of this at the end of every DYK section to get across the actual function of this section, because to the general public it just comes off as "here's some random things". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD and its predecessor suffered from bludgeoning and mulitple misinterpretations of policies including WP:INTERVIEW, which explicitly says "[a] published interview may be [...] primary or secondary". Might try an article on myself in the medium-term, i.e. not in time for this.--Launchballer23:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded another image of Pritchard that is probably of slightly better quality. I am also not committed to a first or image slot 1brianm7 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that hook was twofold. Firstly, there's no reason for me to be interested as I don't know what Eastern Samar is, although I suppose putting the hook in a Philippines set would be a bit of a clue. I'm a Brit, and where I'm from 'politician is endorsed for role but doesn't get it' is extremely common - see for example Endorsements in the 2024 Conservative Party leadership election.--Launchballer23:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good rebuttal. I suppose the second-most interesting hook would be the corruption allegations, but since those are deeply in BLP territory, we shouldn't use them. Beyond those two, I don't see any other potential hooks. However, you raise an interesting point about the relative obscurity of the name "Eastern Samar", and I think you've identified what readers might find most interesting: What is Eastern Samar, and why is an election there noteworthy? I'm not sure how to address that. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not committed to an image or a first slot, but I uploaded an uncluttered transparency if it is needed. Otherwise, I think Launchballer has their sights set!! Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the current wording of the hook. It mentions the Philippines by name, when the mention is arguably not central to the hook fact. That means three hooks in the set that directly namedrop the Philippines, which I fear could raise concerns and drive away readers. Could the hook be reworded to avoid namedropping? Probably the only hooks that need to mention the Philippines directly are the PICC hook (for obvious reasons) and maybe the Tom hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Radical suggestion: based on the previous W&M themed set autopsy results, I would like to put forward an unusual suggestion, somewhat in line with the above recommendations made by User:Khajidha almost a month ago, which were relevant and timely, but received no response. And that is the following: use the term Filipino or Philippines only in the first slot, anticipating and foreshadowing the rest of the set. I get that most people are going to be hostile to this idea, but I would invite you to think about it. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak on Pritchard, but a lot of the sources on him emphasis the unusuality of where he was born, where he died, and who most people thought he was. I would also be hard-pressed to think of an alternative hook that is interesting and doesn't have the word Filipino, Philippines, or Philippine. I also don't really think anyone will look at that hook and his page and complain that it is too similar to other hooks. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I said that others would be hostile to the idea, and I'm sure you're not alone. Based on Naruto's concerns stemming from the W&M set and the recommendation from Khajidha up above, I think it's the best solution. How you go about implementing that requires a radical reorganization of the set and being open to changing things around. In other words, if your hook really needs the terms, then it should be moved into the first slot. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that both of the other hooks that mention the Philippines actually require the mention as part of its interestingness, so while I'm sympathetic to the idea, it would likely require one of them having their wording or hook fact be sacrificed. But yes, my concerns were a response to the W&M set post-mortem and I don't think it would be a good idea to make the same mistakes as that one. This isn't just about the Philippines set: I think my concerns should also apply to the July 4 set next month. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support changing the wording of the hooks that do mention it. But that idea is unlikely to receive any kind of support from others. That's why I couched this as a radical suggestion. It means doing things differently. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pritchard wouldn't work to foreshadow the rest of the set as that hook mentions multiple countries. I'm not convinced three hooks mentioning the Philippines is that bad a thing (I'm sure we've run regular sets that happened to mention a country three times), but I support removing 'Philippine' from the Contracting Colonialism hook.--Launchballer01:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be mentioned more than once, preferably in the first hook slot. We are just going to experience the same low-traffic issue like W&M did due to pseudo-semantic satiation and reader exhaustion and malaise. It would be nice if we learned from our past mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Pritchard needs to be the lead hook or at least the only hook that mentions the Philippines by name. Do you have any suggestions on the PICC/PIC church hook and how it can express the same meaning without mentioning "Philippines"? That might be tough since the hook's interest revolved around them having similar names. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s fine. The hook will not work nearly as well without the names of the two churches. We want people to have some clue about what’s going on, and the Philippines is a very big topic compared to W&M. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 I think we may want to go back to just saying ... that Contracting Colonialism's title for the second hook, it reads a bit awkwardly without the national identifier imo. I had suggested that alt because I wasn't sure if we wanted to name the country in every hook or not. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, most of the TDOV and TDOR hooks mentioned gender and most of them did reasonably, which leads me to believe this is a solution in need of a problem.--Launchballer02:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and hooky hooks get more clicks. That's what we need to focus on, not arbitrarily remove references to the special set's theme. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems like Hingotanan and Iocovozzi will likely not be ready in time, I've moved Pritchard into the image slot and pulled Olivia Rodrigo's "Begged" into this set. Gwen's AfD has been closed as "keep", so if that's approved it can be promoted. Launchballer, we also have another approved hook in the the Eastern Samar elections nomination if you want to take a look there. If Gwen is approved and editors prefer that one to "Begged", the latter can easily be moved to another prep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if there'd be any interest in possibly running a FIFA World Cup-based set (or even just an association football set in general) for the day of this year's FIFA World Cup final (19 July), since it's just over a month and a half away? There was only one DYK hook + an FA ran for the previous final in 2022, but a full set was ran on the day of the 2018 final, so there is some past precedent for it.
I've already got one article currently nominated (Brazil v France (1958 FIFA World Cup), nomination here) with the suggestion of running it the day of the final, another active nomination (Jean Varraud, nomination here) that would very likely work for it, plus another two that I currently plan to work on (one's in draftspace right now, while the other is a 5x expansion that I'd been planning for a bit now). ShadowBallX (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if there's interest in a whole set, but we could do something similar to the Olympics where we regularly run Olympics-related hooks during the whole Games. It might actually be more practical as well to have a special "period" rather than a set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support an association football set for this day, with the caveat that it must follow the principles of WP:DYKVAR, with geographic and historical diversity and an appropriate balance of bios and non-bios. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update to this, I currently have three active nominations that would work perfectly for an association football set (the Brazil v France match mentioned above, plus Rudi Glöckner and Rappresentativa OPBG), as well as another potential two to four articles in varying stages of progress that would most likely work. Additionally, I've shot a message over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see if there was any interest over there about it.
As well, if the set idea does goes ahead and there ends up not being any interest from other people, I'd be willing to provide all the hooks for it, provided that's allowed (I actually have no idea if it is or not). ShadowBallX (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not prohibited to have a set all be by the same person (we've done a few in the past), but it's not seen as ideal, and it's been a point of criticism before. We usually don't like running more than one or two hooks by the same editor at a time. Given that we actually have multiple football/soccer-specializing editors at DYK, it might be a good idea to coordinate with another editor who could chime in and help share the workload. Maybe SounderBruce and others are interested? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's an issue with having all or most of the hooks done by one person as long as they otherwise meet DYKVAR. The Papua New Guinea set was done by one person and it was terrific and very well received. The issue arises when the topic set is too narrow, and "association football" isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support having a whole set for one day. That day can be final, but it needs more discussion. As for the topics, the hooks should focus on related cultures, cities, stadiums, and other pertinent subjects to enhance the idea's acceptability. --Mhhosseintalk15:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support This prompted me to expand Lazăr Sfera as my potential contribution to that set -- hopefully it meets at least the "association football set in general" criterion. (Will nominate it soon.) Dahn (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally there's more lead time, but it seems like something that might encourage article creations/expansions. DYKVAR would still need to be kept to as much as possible, as mentioned above. CMD (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gnoli and finding many footnotes that do not source what they are claimed to source and a nominator who appears befuddled by my assertions that this is a problem. The same nominator is also a nominator of two other active nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Livia Accarigi (not yet under review) and Template:Did you know nominations/Miwa Kai (under review by User:TheBritinator). A brief investigation finds similar issues in Miwa Kai (e.g. source for birth date gives only the year, not the date) and Accarigi ("An abbot named Pasquini frequented the Accarigi house and pushed her to present her works to the public" does not match anything in its source). Perhaps a deeper investigation is needed? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I examined this nominator’s Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Olenina-d'Alheim for promotion and found several missing citations that should have been present. I did not check to see if the cited content backs up the sourcing. (This nominator did not include page numbers for the specific cited material, and the pages most likely to back up the material were not visible to me in Google Books so I did not promote.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In 1887, her family moved to Saint Petersburg. She began to study music under Yuliya Platonova, a proponent of the new Russian school of music.Source does not validate any claims: her family moving to St Petersburg in 1887, nor that Platonova was Olenina's teacher, nor that Platonova was a proponent of the new Russian school.
She was also related to Anna Olenina, a writer who courted Alexander Pushkin.Source says Pushkin courted Anna Olenina, not the other way 'round, and makes no mention of Anna Olenina being related to Maria Olenina.
While touring in France, she met the French writer and music critic Baron Pierre d'Alheim (1862–1922) who had written a monograph on Mussorgsky in 1896, and the two married in 1898.Source validates his birth year and that he wrote a monograph on Mussorgsky. It does not validate his death date, that Olenina met him while touring in France, or the date of their marriage.
She was persuaded to write a memoir of her life in the 1940s. She began working on her autobiography, titled Dreams and Recollections, in 1948, which later served as a prominent source for Tumanov's authoritative book on her life and work.One source says nothing about any of this. The other validates that she had a memoir (called "Dreams and Reminiscences"), but nothing about being persuaded to write it or the timing in the 1940s.
Spotchecking this source via TWL, I found a significant passage of WP:CLOP. (This does not come up in Earwig's Copyvio Detector because of the paywall.) Compare:
Article:Maria Alexeyevna Olenina was born in 1869 at her family's Istomino estate near the town of Kasimov in the Ryazan Governorate of the Russian Empire. She was born into the Russian nobility as the younger daughter of Alexei Petrovich Olenin, a pianist and composer, and Varvara Alexandrovna Bakunina. Her brother Alexander Olenin (1861–1944) became a composer of over a dozen works. Her father was appointed director of the Stroganov Art School in Moscow in 1882. As a girl, she suffered from poor eyesight, heightening her hearing and musical memory. Brought up in the countryside of central Russia, she was strongly influenced by Russian folk music. She was exposed to byliny (epic ballads) sung by peasant farmers about legendary figures like Dobrynya Nikitich and Alyosha Popovich. Olenina-d'Alheim descended from multiple notable Russian artists and officials. Her grandfather, Pyotr Olenin (1794–1868), was a painter and major general, and her great grandfather Alexey Olenin was an archaeologist who presided over the Imperial Academy of Arts from 1817 to 1843. She was also related to Anna Olenina, a writer who courted Alexander Pushkin. In 1887, her family moved to Saint Petersburg. She began to study music under Yuliya Platonova, a proponent of the new Russian school of music. Impressed by Olenina's gifts, Platonova recommended her to Mily Balakirev and Vladimir Stasov. That winter, they invited her to perform at Balakirev's house. There, she met the "Mighty Handful" of composers, including Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, César Cui, Anatoly Lyadov, Alexander Glazunov, and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, who reacted with enormous enthusiasm to her singing.
Source:Born in Russia on 19 September (1 October, New Style) 1869 on the family estate of Istomino in the province of Ryazan, Maria Alexeyevna Olenina came from a cultivated, highly intelligent family. The Olenin household was renowned for its artistic gatherings, at which, in former years, Mikhail Glinka's songs and romances had been performed and Aleksandr Pushkin had recited his verses. From birth Olenina had poor eyesight, but this heightened her hearing and musical memory. Brought up in the country, she heard firsthand byliny (epic ballads) about characters like Dobrynya Nikitich and Alyosha Popovich, the idiosyncratic singing of the peasant performers making a strong impression upon her. In 1887 her family moved to St. Petersburg, where she was introduced to the activities and music of the members of the Mighty Handful and subsequently had personal meetings with Mily Alexeyevich Balakirev and Vladimir Stasov. In the capital, she took lessons with Yulia Platonova, a keen supporter of the music of the "new Russian school," and particularly that of Mussorgsky. Impressed by her pupil's exceptional musical gifts, Platonova spoke warmly of her talents to Balakirev and Stasov, and as a result of these recommendations, Olenina was invited to perform in the winter of 1887 at a musical gathering at Balakirev's house in honor of Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Nearly all the great Russian composers attended--including Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov, Alexander Glazunov, and other members of the nationalist school--and Olenina's performance was received with the greatest enthusiasm.
I didn't do further review for CLOP and I didn't check any additional sources. But I will be pulling the approval on the Maria Olenina nomination at this time given the numerous source/text integrity issues. RabidTuberculosis, I see you have been active on the project since TheBritinator pinged you to this discussion. I strongly recommend you address the concerns @David Eppstein and I have raised here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I'll attempt to answer each question below. First, I want to reiterate that I genuinely appreciate thorough review, as this is the first time in my last eight months of active contribution to Wikipedia that I've received detailed criticism. I'm also new to DYK, having been invited to submit my first article 2 months ago, after which I've had 2 articles published on the front page. I particularly enjoy creating biographies using foreign language sources, which can be painstaking. For past articles where information from old literary sources was scattered, my strategy was to first write a draft that pieces together a general biographic skeleton, a second pass to contextualize and grade the fidelity of detailed information and add the color, and finally to return to each of (often dozens) of sources to add as references to lines that draw mostly, or exclusively, to that source. However, after reviewers of such articles communicated a sense of unease that details, which may be found in the body of sources but not in particular references, were not always immediately and clearly attributable, I've been significantly more precise in adding references which completely cover any information in any given sentence (see, for example, Giorgio Valensin). I am more than happy to make edits to past articles to bring them in line with standards, or to make any desired changes.
For Template:Did you know nominations/Miwa Kai, the exact birth date comes from an archival Japanese-language source (now added), but I had preferred an English source as reference (which only corroborated year). I've added the former and will be less reticent to cite foreign sources on English articles.
For Template:Did you know nominations/Livia Accarigi, the sentence about "abbot Pasquini" is derived from the source referenced immediately before that line. Since the rest of the line regards his having encouraged Accarigi to perform in public, I added a reference recounting her public performances. For completeness, I've added the earlier reference to this line as well. In the future, I will be less reticent in repeating sources or appending multiple to a single line.
For Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gnoli, the crux is that I sourced most intimate details about her life from the Raffaella di Castro source, but rather than link the source excessively, I link it for sentences or paragraphs for which it is the sole source. When it is bolstered by other sources, I put those, even if further color is from the di Castro source, which I assume the reader has already seen. That said, every statement is sourced from the general body of references taken from literature about the subject. I will note that most of the articles on women literary figures that I used as a template cite broadly rather than fastidiously at each line. However, if in-line references need to be redone so that every sentence cites each of (potentially multiple) sources, I'm happy to take this on.
Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Olenina-d'Alheim, same as for Gnoli; many lines use a reference that is most related to one of its claims, with the understanding that earlier sources (especially major ones like Tumanov, which appear earlier in the article) which account for the rest are known to the reader. That said, the Tumanov source is the most comprehensive, and I didn't realize each was referencing the same page number (will fix). Some of the review comments seem semantic (re: courtship), but the largest issue seems to regard WP:CLOP of the Seaman source. I've read the page in detail, and I believe I've adequately paraphrased the landmark facts from Seaman (birth, kinship, education, association) without using any of the same wording, and WP:LIMITED applies to multiple facts and dates. If I can improve the sourcing, or if I've gravely misunderstood how sources can be used, please inform me. Otherwise, short of omitting information for which Seaman is the sole source, I believe I've maximally altered content without WP:NOCREATIVE or WP:SYNTH and substantiated information, where possible, with other sources.
Your explanation on Olenina does not explain how so many citations don't cover the material in the text they are used to support. As for close paraphrasing, there's more I found in Seaman. Compare:
Source:The following decades of her life were marred by ever-increasing material problems, largely brought about by her pride and her uncompromising support for the Soviet regime, which earned her little sympathy from fellow Russian émigrés.Article:Although she had inherited a sizable estate from her husband's noble estate, she began to experience financial difficulties, due in part to pride and her uncompromising support for the Soviet government, which earned her a measure of scorn from fellow Russian émigrés.
Source:In the 1940s she was persuaded to write her memoirs, and in 1948 she started work on her autobiography, Dream and Recollections, one of the main sources of Tumanov's book.Article:She was persuaded to write a memoir of her life in the 1940s. She began working on her autobiography, titled Dreams and Recollections, in 1948, which later served as a prominent source for Tumanov's authoritative book on her life and work.
Source:in 1959, nearly ninety years old, she was finally able to obtain long-sought permission to return to Moscow.Article:In 1959, at nearly the age of 90, she was granted long-sought permission to return to her homeland by the government of the Soviet Union.
This is clear superficial modification of material from another source, our definition of close paraphrasing. The sentence structures are mostly identical, the order of explanation and emphasis overlap, and some phrases are lifted verbatim ("pride and her uncompromising support", "long-sought permission to return"). And you cited these closely paraphased sentences with sources that aren't the Seaman review and in some cases don't support this text. Moreover, the goal is not "maximally alter[ing] content"; it's writing it in your own words and using your own summary of all the source material. I would invite any of our copyright experts who frequent this board to weigh in here to be sure I'm not off base on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I was hoping for a response and improvement but alas it would seem that it may not to be. I'll do my own spotcheck on Miwa Kai tomorrow and then progress as suited. TheBritinator (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the Chernyshev nomination. Given the unresponsiveness, I wonder if further discussions, including talk page messages, are needed here. Either that, or there is genuinely the option of taking this to ANI (which I hope doesn't happen). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I've been traveling and thus unable to respond quickly, apologies for latency. I've worked to improve 3 articles to meet GA criteria and learned a lot in the process about source synthesis, close paraphrase, etc. I am happy to revisit the d'Alheim article to fix close phrasing or other sourcing issues; my desire is to use feedback to become a better editor and make each article thorough and encyclopedic. The best place to capture suggestions are on the associated talk pages, or I'm bound to lose reviewer suggestions. As I will be limited in the ability to make major overhauls until July, please close any DYK submissions for articles that require detailed improvement. Apologies for the growing pains! All the best, RabidTuberculosis (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Back in February, GreenLipstickLesbian and Z1720proposed a special set for 9 August in conjunction with International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples. With the opening period for nominations for a 9 August set coming up in just a few days, I wanted to see if there is still interest in and support for a set on this topic. (If approved, I will have at least one hook to nominate.) Courtesy ping to Viriditas who also participated in discussion of this potential set. Thanks for your feedback! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think my original, preferred topic will pan out due to the GA backlog, so I will choose a different topic to work on. Viriditas (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Starting the checks for Queue 5. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor can check the picture hook on the Mount Zion COGIC since I promoted that one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Surprised the hook doesn't use the word 'river', but I suppose it's interesting enough that something as mundane as a baptism could draw that much attention?--Launchballer20:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger, AirshipJungleman29, and RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: I hate to bring this here when this hook's long saga is almost at the finish line, but I... simply cannot see where in the sources it reports the hook claim exactly, particularly the part about immediately returning. The article says: On March 16, he held a press conference in Corvallis, Oregon, to meet the local press as after agreeing to a five-year contract worth $4.85 million.
Joyner remained with Michigan through the 2026 NCAA tournament, although there was an urgency at Oregon State to "retain players, to build a staff, and to prepare for the transfer portal." He formally began as head coach on the day after Michigan's tournament ended. The SI article reports on the press conference, and the MLive article says he will remain on Michigan's coaching staff for the big 10 tournament, and the Oregonian article is also prospective, saying he will join Oregon State after Michigan's tournament. I don't see anything in the article or the sources about an immediate return following the press conference, and there is a source/text integrity issue with the passage that is closest to the hook. I really do not want to pull this at this late stage given this hook's lengthy journey, so I'll leave it for a day for a tuneup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, please take a look here. There are source-text integrity issues and the hook claim is not fully supported by citations. This nomination is long past timing out, and if it's pulled from prep it is likely to be marked for closure immediately instead of left open for additional work. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source actually says "He will remain an active member of the Michigan coaching during its postseason games" not he will remain on Michigan's coaching staff for the big 10 tournament. Since the conference was after Michigan was eliminated from the Big 10 tournament, that is not the relevant tournament. ALT5a could have run with the word immediately removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You were pinged twice and were given multiple days to respond. Talkback templates aren't the only way to contact editors: pings have that function too. Nominators have to be vigilant and responsive to their nominations, whether it was on the nomination page or here at WT:DYK. Enough grace had already been given to the nomination, and prolonging it further would have been like giving it special treatment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that active these days and am definitely not a reg on this talk page. Odds are I won't see any notification on a page not on my watchlist via pings. I check my User talk regularly. Pings not so much. If you had left any message on the DYK discussion template page, the article talk page or my user talk page, I would have responded. I was following all three of those.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer both of your questions: firstly, it is the nominator's responsibility to respond to new comments or messages. Not reading pings is discouraged because it likely means missing a request to respond. If an editor has been pinged, there is probably a good reason behind it. Secondly, being notified of a rejection is optional, but again, nominators are supposed to monitor their nominations on a regular basis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698, Miminity, and RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: Is Tim Hodge a reliable source for this claim? He appears to be a local genealogist whose lecture was reprinted in the local paper. We don't usually consider self-published genealogy research as reliable, and I doubt the newspaper did fact-checking when it reprinted this lecture text. Is there a reason to consider this a reliable source? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into Hodge some more and he does hold a doctorate 1. Hodge is only used as a source for one brief sentence so if it is a major issue we can remove it or replace the reference. Jon698 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will be on my computer in about one hour or so and then I can look at the other sources in the page for possible replacement. Jon698 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like Hodge is used for five citations including the hook sentence so if it's not a good source we need to replace it. I would question whether a Ph.D. in Creative Leadership for Innovation and Change from UVI qualifies one as an expert in historical research. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PlatypeanArchcow, GRuban, and SL93: The hooks appear to be sourced to Baranschikov's own travelogue yet are stated in wikivoice as facts. I'd also like to see quotations translated into English in the DYK; I can't read Russian to verify, but the claims edge sufficiently toward fanciful that I don't trust a first-person 18th-century account for them. (It's also unclear what a "feat of gluttony" is.) ALT2 is probably on the firmest footing but I can't tell if it was approved by the reviewer. Finally, there are several unsourced sentences throughout that need to be cited ASAP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Er - the approved hook is "...that Vasily Baranshchikov claimed to have entertained his enslaver with feats of gluttony?", how is that "stated in wikivoice as fact"? I am (more or less) fluent in Russian, and can translate a few specific quotations for you, be specific as to which you want (please not "all of them", I'm not going to translate a hundred page narrative). --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have been clearer -- two of the other hooks described his claims as facts. I would like to see the passage that confirms the agreed hook fact rendered in English, especially since machine translation doesn't work on Google Books and queuers aren't supposed to assume good faith on whether the source backs up the hook. There are also two other issues preventing its appearance on the main page: multiple unsourced statements and a excessive reliance on his own memoir as a source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the book is on WikiSource, so I could drop the relevant parts of it into Google Translate, from around markers (pages, I guess?) 22-26, as marked in the article. I can also attest to the translation as a more-or-less-native Russian speaker, it's surprisingly good. The story is told in the third person:
Russian (old style)
Онъ же примѣтя ихъ слабость сдѣлалъ смѣшное и по ихъ названію чудное дѣло: въ одинъ разъ сварилъ изъ сарацынскаго пшена глиненой горшокъ каши и положилъ тюленьяго жиру; та каша разопрѣла и у него горшокъ трѣснулъ; а онъ въ небытность Магомета призвалъ тѣхъ его четырехъ женъ и сказалъ: посмотрите сударыни, какъ я по Россійски стану кутать кашу, у насъ [23]коровье масло весьма дешево, нетакъ какъ здѣсь, что я принужденъ ѣсть съ тюленьимъ жиромъ; онѣ удивились, а онъ нарочно съѣлъ горшокъ каши, и всталъ какъ будто голоденъ: лишь только пришелъ домой Магометъ Паша, то онѣ расказали, что Ислямъ твой слуга съѣлъ крутую кашу при насъ съ тюленьимъ жиромъ; Магометъ равно какъ и они удивился, смѣялся, хохоталъ и неповѣривъ своимъ женамъ, сказалъ: что должно брюху трѣснуть, когда Ислямъ столько съѣлъ каши; призовите вы его, я самъ распрошу, правда ли ето. Баранщиковъ призванъ былъ при четырехъ его господина женахъ и въ своемъ кушаньѣ незаперся. Капитанъ Магометъ смѣясь говорилъ по Турецки: Ислямъ Баша! нероды Чокъ Екмель? то есть, какъ ты кашу ѣлъ, горшокъ трѣснулъ, я думаю что и твое брюхо такъ же трѣснетъ. Баранщиковъ съ веселымъ [24]видомъ отвѣчалъ ему, я еще два горшка такихъ же съѣмъ; Магометъ же сказалъ: подлинно Россіяне крѣпки и какъ я по слуху знаю, въ прошедшую войну сожгли у насъ въ Чесмѣ флотъ, разбили насъ, всѣхъ нашихъ витязей умертвили на сухомъ пути за рѣкою Дунаемъ и передъ Дунаемъ; мы гдѣ ни посмотримъ, то вездѣ Россіяне, въ горахъ и въ разсѣлинахъ земныхъ, куда ни поворотимся, куда ни пойдемъ, то они вездѣ, насъ разбиваютъ, берутъ въ полонъ и отсылаютъ въ свои города; скажи мнѣ пожалуй, отъ чего вы столько сильны. Баранщиковъ ободрясь случаемъ вздумалъ изрядную ложь и сказалъ: наши солдаты или янычары презираютъ смерть: у насъ есть трава растущая въ болотахъ, и когда янычаръ идетъ на войну, лишь бы только ее отвѣдалъ, то одинъ напуститъ на двѣсти вашихъ Турковъ, я такой же, меня ты неподумай [25]удержать; я тебѣ служу годъ и два мѣсяца, а ты Магометъ Паша долженъ по повелѣнью великаго Пророка Магомета чрезъ семь лѣтъ отпустить меня на свободу и дашь мнѣ награжденье и тогда я куда хочу туда и пойду. Совѣсть Магомета изобличала и онъ въ замѣшательствѣ увѣщалъ Баранщикова такъ: Ислямъ, намъ съ тобою небраниться и нессориться, мнѣ удивительна кажется твоя каша, я созову гостей и ты пожалуй свари ее и при нихъ кушай. Такая потачка сдѣлала его на нѣкоторое время счастливымъ: онъ каждой день варилъ для себя крутую кашу, и какъ невсякой горшокъ лопалъ, то умудрился покупать пузыри, и нарочно кричалъ, что каша поспѣла, и пузырь положа на огонь производилъ такой звукъ, будто горшокъ лопнулъ, и тѣ четыре женщины Турчанки прибѣгали къ нему въ кухню, а онъ разбилъ горшокъ [26]чемъ нибудь, смѣшилъ ихъ, и Капитанъ Магометъ Паша нарочно созывалъ къ себѣ гостей и велѣлъ ему кашу при себѣ съѣдать, а они дарили ему за то по нѣскольку денегъ.
English
Noticing their weakness, he did something amusing—and, in their words, extraordinary: he cooked a clay pot of rice porridge with seal blubber. The porridge swelled as it cooked, causing the pot to crack. While Mahomet was away, he called the four wives over and said, "Ladies, watch how I prepare porridge Russian-style; back home, cow's butter is very cheap—unlike here, where I’m forced to eat it with seal blubber." They were astonished as he deliberately ate the entire pot of porridge, then stood up as if still hungry. As soon as Mahomet Pasha returned home, they told him, "Your servant Islyam ate a whole pot of thick porridge with seal blubber right in front of us." Mahomet, like them, was amazed; he laughed heartily and, half-disbelieving his wives, remarked, "His belly ought to burst after eating that much porridge! Call him here—I’ll question him myself to see if it’s true." Baranshchikov was summoned before his master's four wives and did not deny having eaten the meal. Captain Mahomet laughed and said in Turkish, "Islyam Basha! *Ne-redi chok ekmek?*"—meaning, "You ate so much porridge that the pot cracked; I imagine your belly will burst just the same." Baranshchikov replied cheerfully, "I could eat two more pots just like it." Mahomet said: "Truly, the Russians are formidable; as I have heard, in the last war they burned our fleet at Chesma, defeated us, and slaughtered all our warriors on land—both beyond the Danube and on this side of it. Wherever we look, there are Russians—in the mountains and in the ravines; wherever we turn or go, they are there, defeating us, taking us prisoner, and sending us off to their cities. Tell me, pray, what is the source of such great strength?" Emboldened by the moment, Baranshchikov concocted a clever lie and said: "Our soldiers—or Janissaries—despise death. We have a herb that grows in the marshes; when a Janissary goes to war, he need only taste it, and a single man will charge against two hundred of your Turks. I am just the same; do not think you can hold me back. I have served you for a year and two months, and you, Mahomet Pasha, are bound by the command of the great Prophet Mahomet to set me free after seven years and give me a reward; then I shall go wherever I please." Mahomet’s conscience pricked him, and, somewhat flustered, he urged Baranshchikov: "Islam, let us not quarrel or fight; that 'porridge' of yours intrigues me. I shall invite guests, and you must cook it and eat it in their presence." This indulgence made him happy for a time: every day he would cook himself a thick porridge, and—since not every pot would actually burst—he managed to buy bladders; he would loudly announce that the porridge was ready, place a bladder on the fire to create a sound like a bursting pot, and when the four Turkish women came running into the kitchen, he would smash the pot with something to make them laugh; furthermore, Captain Mahomet Pasha would deliberately invite guests over and order him to eat his porridge in their presence, and they would give him a few coins in return.
Looks good, thanks for sharing. Now we just need citations added where they are missing and the question of the reliability of the memoir addressed given how many places its used for factual claims in the article. I'm also not sold on the interestingness of what Baranshchikov's says about his experience (noting that the narrative sounds somewhat fanciful) but if someone else wants to re-promote this after the maintenance templates are dealt with, I'll leave that to them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: ooh, good note. To try and maximize time between them, we could keep The Cure (goes up in ~2 hours) and maybe move Begged back a bit? Could swap it for something in prep 1 or 3. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 22:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait I think I misunderstood the intent here. Is the goal to not have similar hooks in short succession, or to time these to be relevant for when the album drops? (very much still learning the ropes here :>) If the latter, we could move both to prep 3, to not mess with the Philippines set and come out the day after the album is released. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 22:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, I hadn't gotten that far in the queue checks, but I was planning to do a swap once I got there. @Vermont, on very specific niches we should space out the hooks by at least five days and preferably a week. We don't generally time hooks for commercial occasions like album releases per WP:DYKSO. (As an example of another spacing that needs to happen, I am planning to move the image hook in Prep 1 so we don't have Canadian church-related hooks in the image slot twice in three days.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo is actually half-Filipino and is open about her identity, so had we had more time, we actually could have possibly run something related to her on June 12. The issue is that the connection probably would have been tangential, but it's a bit embarrassing that I didn't think of this earlier.
To answer Vermont's question: ideally we don't like running hooks about very similar topics too close to each other, unless we just have too many hooks about them or if the topics are broad enough. There's a reason why Jilly Cooper is famous within DYK circles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The issue with Rodrigo is she has a new album out that day, although as Gwen needs its AfD to resolve and Hingotanan and Silver have other problems and we have seven hooks in that set, I might parachute in Begged and the elections hook if none of the others resolve in time. (The set's clearly not intended to promote her.)--Launchballer23:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch, CoryGlee, and SL93: As Cory noted in the review, the source cited for the hook fact doesn't actually say diners eat under the 200-year-old tree, just that it's the restaurant's centerpiece. Another source not adjacent to the hook fact in the article does support the "dining under" claim but only says "centuries-old". Cory's source says The large, unique oak is within walking distance of the restaurant’s outdoor dining area (machine translation), which doesn't sound like something that is dined under, and it also describes it as a 100-year-old tree. The sourcing, article text and hook fact need to be aligned here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that a tree age will vary, no one can determine the age of a tree without cutting it. And the San Diego Union Tribune is a source from 2018, another outdated source. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The tree surely did not age 100 years in 7 years. If there are competing sources we should not be using that claim. I'll be bumping this hook off for further discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not providing alternatives simply because an user, arbitrarily, decided to give undue weight to outdated sources, First, you claimed "the source says it is not under the tree, but near it", citing a source discussing the first inception of the pop-up restaurant (i.e, a temporary restaurant) that lead to the current establishment, then you made it about an inconsistency created by sources published almost ten years ago (WP:AGE MATTERS). Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I simply looked at the sources in the article and the source supplied by CoryGlee. The source you placed next to the hook in the article didn't mention the location of the diners relative to the tree. The source Cory supplied said the age of the tree was 100 years. There are now multiple sources that disagree about the age of the tree, which was the root (so to speak) of the hook's interest and thus can't be used. But if you don't want to workshop alternatives, I'll go ahead and pull from prep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 I was going to suggest ... that diners at Animalón may eat under an old oak tree? I thought about it more and I'm not sure that the hook is interesting. I don't think doing things underneath a tree, no matter how old the tree is (and many trees can become very old), is interesting. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dahn, Launchballer, and SL93: I can't say I understand what this hook is supposed to be saying -- that the TV viewing tastes of the Romanian intelligentsia do not overlap with belly dancing? The hook seems to imply that this somehow represents a degeneration in quality but I don't see that supported by the sources, and without that angle on the evolution of programming this strikes me as simply a recitation of two disparate facts and not meeting WP:DYKINT. Thoughts? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that one was much more stereotypically highbrow rather than necessarily higher quality, although I suppose that might be putting two and two together to make five. There's ALT1 (although maybe leave out 'overweight'), but do you have another suggestion?--Launchballer23:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, the source I had quoted in full did clearly say (right or wrong as it may be) that it was a degeneration of quality, by noting that the programs were expected to be better than that. Obviously, in the original wording I had proposed, there was mention of a third stage in that degeneration, also as per a quoted critical comment -- namely, that they ended up with shows on whitchcraft. Once that was removed, we no longer "see" the point of the hook just as clearly.
Just like the source for ALT1 makes a point of noting that Păunescu was overweight (he was: immensely so).
It would be great if these objections could be brought up in the 30-day long periods my noms spend without a review, rather than have my proposals curated in a non-transparent manner, off the cuff. This would allow me to come up with other hooks -- this article has many other usable ones, and I would rather explore those than see my proposals whittled down to vanilla content or "dog bites man" angles. Dahn (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments there: please let me have a clear verdict saying that the two hooks I proposed, in the original form I provided, are unacceptable (rather than not adhering to the personal tastes of reviewers), before asking me to consider more hooks (which I am willing to do, as stated, but not unless the objections are clarified and rooted, however vaguely, in policy). I think that would be more collegial and fair. And transparent. Dahn (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking Dclemens1971 for clarifying their position on my talk; @Launchballer: what precisely is the objection to mentioning Păunescu's obesity, as per the quoted source? Also: would you be against running the original version of the original hook, which also mentioned witchcraft? -- and if not, why? (I get your generic preference for brevity, sure, but in this case it diluted the hook and its point. Is that the criterion invoked?) Dahn (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to also note that we have this on mainpage just now: that the University of Southern California's radio station went from "rinky-dink" to a national producer of classical-music programs within a decade? Note how it is structured almost the same as as the Tele7 hook (with a quote that is not even vaguely attributed, when on my nom I was made to believe we must attribute quotes), and how it suggests the notion of transition (in that case, growth rather than decline) by focusing on two states of the same institution. Granted, that hook relies on a single source for both states -- this is however matched by Tele7 being unanimously regarded by sources as having drastically declined over those few years, with some calling it the absolute worst in 1990s Romanian TV.
I would say that the usage of "rinky-dink" in the blurb is based on a misinterpretation of the phrase. A fuller quote is "rinky-dink college station", which makes me interpret the phrase in the "operating on a small, insignificant scale" as opposed to its later growth into a "national producer". Thus, it seems a straightforward statement of fact, a station that began by serving a single campus grew to have a national audience in only 10 years. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained elsewhere, the sense that belly dancing = degeneration in programming was not clearly conveyed in the machine translation of the Romanian source text provided. With KUSC, the hook fact was clearly stated in the source material. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971: the first phrase of the source, in machine translation, says: Among all the shows on Tele 7 ABC (made with professionalism and imagination), one strikes a discordant note. This means that there was a standard, but the shows were degenerating, in that critic's opinion. I will note again that the portion that was cut out of the hook by Launchballer added to that, by citing another author for a more complete degradation of the supposed standard.
Khajidha: Yes and no. The degeneration was objective, as far as any such degeneration can be objective, in that Tele7 went from winning prizes to being habitually fined by the state authority mandated with evaluating content (it wasn't just bad content, it was viewed as salacious, violent, or unethical by a panel of judges). You will however note that, unlike the "rinky-dink college station" content that was on Main Page just hours ago (even with the supposedly narrowed meaning, it is still someone's opinion -- whether it be on quality or merely size --, and rendered as such in quotes, though without any attribution), my proposed hooks do not state that you have to agree with belly-dancing or sensationalistic shows being of objectively less quality than award-winning reportage catering to the Romanian intelligentsia; you just have to be presented with the fact that the station's profile changed. Radically so. Most users will find that interesting, even if they were to actually prefer belly-dancing to "quality" talk shows.
I cannot escape the feeling that I'm being made to respect supposed norms that are not spelled out anywhere, and that are simply ignored in other nominations. And I am still waiting on an explanation as to why the mention of Păunescu's physical condition, clearly noted in the source, was quietly removed from the ALT. Dahn (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"One strikes a discordant note" does not mean the programming is "degenerating". Perhaps, but that's reading more interpretation into the source material than it should bear. If that's what queuers were expected to be looking for, no wonder I missed it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well it clearly means: "while most shows are still good, that one is crap." Maybe you can now go to the original hook as I had proposed it, and note what the third clause in that sentence said about the quality of programming in 1999. Whan that portion was AGF removed, we were left with that more ambiguous option, which was then removed because it didn't make as much sense. I don't stick by that phrasing, or even by that hook, but the source does say that, and the point was rendered less visible by a process that I had no control over. Moviong on: if we go with the ALT, why are we purging mentions of Păunescu's obesity? Was there any justification for that move? Dahn (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, you have exhausted my willingness to participate in this discussion. Elsewhere I offered a suggestion for how you could prepare your nominations to assist non-Romanian-speaking reviewers. You are an experienced DYKer, though, so my guess is you don't see a need to change anything about how you prepare nominations and engage with the rest of the community here when questions are raised. For my part, between this discussion and the Gelu Voican Voiculescu discussion, the lesson I've received is that engaging with your hooks leads to frustration. Good luck with everything. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) Size is not a matter of opinion. 2) I find the change in profile interesting, but the characterization of it as degenerating is an opinion that has no place here. In fact, why not just say that it went from winning prizes to being fined? That's interesting and not opinion. 3) There are very, very, very limited instances when we should be referring to an individual's weight. Such mentions too often come across as abusive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. It actually is, especially for adjectives such as "rinky-dink" -- unless we assume that there is an objective way to define "too small". But either way.
2. The characterization of it degenerating is not in the proposed hook, which can be read (as interesting, per your comment) without any judgment on the quality -- though the critics are obviously stating this point, the hook did not hinge on their opinion. In other words: you can view the near-unanimous consensus, namely that Tele7 became the worst station of its day, as merely commenting on a change of target and scope, as nothing in the hook prevents you from taking that position, nor does it coach you as to which standard is better.
3. I will accept that -- as much as I still see it as a matter of editorial preference over quoted policy. Dahn (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) The difference between broadcasting to a single campus and national listening is not an opinion. 2) If the hook does not state this as an issue of quality, why do you keep characterizing it as such?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. The claim that broadcasting to a college is "rinky-dink" is very much an opinion.
2. I do not characterize it as such, though I can see a point to it being viewed as such. I am however transparently tellibg you that this was the critical consensus. I am also telling you that the hook does not require you to agree, because it refers to the objective fact of the changing demographic. Or you could point out which part of the hook contradicts me, and ground your rebuttal. Dahn (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Rinky dink" in this usage simply means "extraordinarily small in extent". Like a single college campus. A station that is designed to broadcast to a single campus is "extraordinarily small" in scope. 2) You are the one who keeps bringing it up and claiming it was your intent to highlight this "degradation". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) And "extraodinarily" is just as much an opinion! It refers to a standard of how big a station should be, and what is "too" small. Let's not, and say we did.
2) Do I happen to believe that it was a degradation? Yes. Do the sources used for the article say it was? Yes, including by very objective criteria ("the station was broadcasting slander", for instance). Does the hook call on you to agree that was sources call degradation is an actual degradation? No. Is the content-change interesting in itself? Yiu seem to have agreed that it is. Does this clarify the issue? Dahn (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) No, it's a reference to the actual size and scope of a station compared to other stations. An ordinary station broadcasts to an entire city or larger area. 2) If you agree that the content change was interesting in itself, why do you keep bringing up the degradation? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. First off, it's an unattributed quote, so the point is moot even for that. Second: yes, saying that something is too small is an opinion under any definition, no matter how we spin in. And no matter how many new definitions we find for the "rinky-dink" used there. Third: I do not even mind that "rinky-dink" was used, but I did, and will, ask why some quotes we attribute and others not.
2. I brought up what I pleased. To the point: does me bringing it up.however many times I please actually insert my opinion, real or supposed, in the hook? If so: where? Dahn (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) No one is saying "too small". They are saying "very small compared to most others". One is an opinion. One is a fact. 2) If it is not in the hook and is not necessary for the hook, why are you so combative about it? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) This hermeneutic defense is very imaginative, particularly be removing all known dictionary definitions of "rinky-dink", but also by, yes, underscoring that it is an opinion: the comparison you have concocted and pretend is the author's is still an opinion, since it spells the terms of a comparison with no metric -- we trust the unattributed author to tell us what the comparison should be. (I should emphasize that I am taking the charade at face value. "Rinky-dink" was more likely used by the source to indicate that it was "amateurish" in nature, or even "not up to acceptable standards". Both of which are secondary uses of "rinky-dink", as the primary usage, in which it means "insignificant", was probably not in the source's intent; your novel interpretation of the notion only shows up, perhaps, in tertiary usage, and even there with a disparaging nuance: as "something miscellaneous".)
2) I am not at all combative, let alone about what you claim I am combative about. I am demanding to know what grounding there is to the interventions made in the hooks I write; more importantly for the community, I am asking if we can stick to a single standard in terms of what goes into the hooks. I write the hooks, they get little to no objection while in the nom process (when a large pool of editors can intervene), they are actually approved, then I wake up to them seriously modified by more or less tacit agreement between two or three fellow editors. That is what prompts me to comment here -- where, btw, I was tagged. But let's play then: if you don't see an opinion in the hook, then why are you so combative in discussing the non-issue of "but what if there was one"? Or is the point of your commenting here just to exhaust my patience? Dahn (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you: I have not said "it is not necessary for the hook". I have said that the hook is not an opinion on quality, even if the sources state opinions about quality. Something that is common-sense, I do believe: sources, lo and behold, have opinions (on what is poor-quality, on what is rinky-dink etc.). Now, did the opinion pass in the hook I proposed? If so: where? Are you required by the hook to believe that belly-dancing is low-brow, or are you simply informed (and perhaps intrigued) by the hook that it is something other than the intelligentsia-focused shows of Tele7's heyday? Dahn (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways. To move this along, either run the reduced Păunescu hook or ALT2: ... that, for several days in 2005, the Romanian station Tele7ABC aired a title card with a protest message by its unpaid staff? Source: Cristina Ologeanu, Sebastian S. Eduard, "Nu și-au mai primit salariile de cinci luni. Foamete la Tele 7 abc", in Jurnalul Național, 10 February 2005, p. 24: De câteva zile, angajații Tele 7 abc afișează periodic pe ecran un carton cu mesajul „Salariații Tele 7 abc protestează pentru neplata salariilor pe cinci luni și condițiile inumane de muncă (lipsă apă și căldură)“.. Dahn (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Dahn was unhappy with the Launchballer-suggested trim I made to ALT1 in queue so I bumped this back to a prep. Dahn's combativeness in the discussion above exhausted my willingness to participate in the discussion. Whatever happens with this hook can be decided by others or by whoever moves Prep 6 to queue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, given that a modified ALT1 is now in there, I've removed the under discussion tag and as you state leave it to the judgement of whoever would promote it to queue. TarnishedPathtalk23:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nighfidelity, Morogris, and SL93: I don't see the hook's claims supported by the source. The TIME article indicates Carlisle's company was the largest shareholder in United, but only owned approximately 15% of the company; that would not customarily be enough to say Carlisle owned United. The TIME article also doesn't say that United did control a quarter of U.S. utilities but that this level of control was alleged by SEC investigator Pecora. If it's going to be in the hook, it needs to be attributed, not stated in wikivoice. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 ... that Floyd L. Carlisle co-owned a company, that at one point, allegedly controlled about a quarter of all American utility? I did think that Pecora stating such a thing would be no different than a reliable source stating it. When a subject matter expert says something that they consider to be a fact, editors typically do not say that is an alleged fact. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pecora was an investigator building evidence for administrative law enforcement actions. Citing him in wikivoice is like citing a prosecutor in a court case—perhaps, even likely, correct, but there’s an angle there that means the perspective should be taken into account. If we had a source citing a judicial outcome or evidence that was agreed to by all parties that would be different, but Time simply attributes the claim to Pecora’s investigative material. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a consensus that the hook is fine and I'm an outlier on this, I'm happy to let someone else queue it. Welcoming other opinions -- Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not an all black cast. There is a white character with a white actor in that film. That film deals with race relations/ segregation. It is most certainly not a contender for a horror film with all black actors.4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which character/actor? I haven't seen it as it's lost, but the advertisement in the infobox says "All Colored Cast."Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No it says “all star” colored cast. That’s a different claim, and it’s in an add which is not a reliable source. Note that there are often uncredited roles in films. The plot synopsis refers to white men in the film as a plot point. These actors were likely in uncredited roles. The secondary coverage says the theme of the film is segregation (hard to do without a racially diverse cast). I think you are interpreting a primary material beyond what can be a credible interpretation (particularly in light of the film description in RS).4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is highly speculative WP:OR, but if need be we could change the hook to first all black cast in a sound horror film to disqualify silent films.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the safest solution here is to go with a different angle? Not only is the "first" claim here questioned, but the hook actually seems to be more about the film rather than Bowman herself. Maybe a different hook specifically about Bowman would be better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to think of another hook at this point, or I would suggest one. I think the qualified hook is still interesting. It is about the film, but it’s also about her work on film in participating in a notable first.4meter4 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Oscar Micheaux was known to cast light-skinned black actors to play white characters. In Horror Noire: Blacks in American Horror Films from the 1890s to Present, Robin R. Means Coleman writes "Oscar Micheaux would wipe the exaggerated smiles from faces and reign supreme in offering “Black horror” films.... Among [his 40 films], at least three were silent fright films which more closely resemble the horror genre of today."Zzz plant (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am away at a family funeral this weekend. I have limited availability. I changed the article text to a qualified sound horror film claim, and altered the hook in prep to match. I hope this works, because I am not sure when I will be available to work further. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to self-pull the hook/nomination since I don't really see brand new hooks proposed on this page (as opposed to a variation of an existing one). I knew this would be subject to more scrutiny being a 'first' hook. JuniperChill (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: I see that the hook has now been repromoted; however, I noticed that I had been mentioned in the discussion, but I was not pinged, and the hook was repromoted without giving me a chance to respond. Responding here rather than re-pulling it because I want to address some of 4meter4's concerns.
Firstly, I am not sure why I am being singled out here. I was not the first person to object to the hook, Zzz plant was. So the editor who actually has to be discussed with is not me but her. Secondly, I'm not sure what is with the characterization of me being "against using them in pretty much all cases". That is not entirely true: I am okay with superlative hooks as long as they are properly sourced and are airtight, me bringing them up here has often been more of scrutiny (as recommended by WP:DYKHOOKCITE) rather than objecting to the fact itself per-se. The main reason I am hesitant about them is due to previous experiences of "first" hooks being questioned or being inaccurate, so it comes from experience rather than a personal crusade against them.
Secondly, one possible issue with these hooks, but this is in general rather than referring to this specific hook, is that sometimes, the qualifications added to strengthen a "first" hook claim feel more like extra effort just to preserve a "first" hook. If an alternative but safer option is available, it should at least be considered, even if we ultimately run with the "first" hook. There was argument before where someone said that a particularly "detailed" "first" hook is essentially meaningless, someone will always be the first at something. This does not mean we should ban first hooks entirely, and I'm actually okay with the currently promoted hook for Bowman as long as it's airtight and we are certain it won't be challenged. We just need to be careful with such hooks, and ideally we shouldn't be proposing "first" hooks as a first or only resort if "safer" options are possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: You were the only editor who advocated for trying to find a different hook after the modification was made, and it was why the hook was pulled. That is why your comment was a discussion point. My frustration with your reviews of superlative hooks (mostly nominated by others not of my hooks) extends across multiple conversations over an extended period of time. I'd rather not derail this thread, nor turn it into a place to vent past grievances. It doesn't serve reviewing this hook, nor does it help if editors want to re-examine the hook in prep. I don't want to prevent editors from saying what they think. TarnishedPath and I already discussed the lack of a good alternative hook with several ideas proposed and rejected. I'm not seeing another usable choice for this particular article. I am confident the current modified hook is accurate. Sound films are better documented than silent films, so I think it unlikely that another counter example could be found. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to flag that this change to my hook for David Unaipon in Prep 1 isn't quite correct (courtesy ping @Ravenpuff). My original hook was somewhat poorly worded so the confusion is completely my fault, but the book in question was the first known book by an Aboriginal Australian author, not one of the first books by David Unaipon. Can I ask that the hook be rephrased slightly to something like "... that one of the first known published works by an Aboriginal Australian writer wasn't printed under the name of its true author, David Unaipon, for more than 70 years?" to fix the ambiguous wording of the original hook? Thanks! MCE89 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that congregants of the Talbot Street Baptist Church(pictured) painted their church red, as was the style at the time?
@Crisco 1492, ScalarFactor, and Sxchen1110: I'm not sure if the hook is truly interesting to a broad audience: red churches aren't rare, and the hook itself says that churches being painted at the time the norm. Unless it's meant to contrast with the picture (since the church is obviously not red anymore), it's a relatively weak hook. There were other proposals suggested in the nom: are any of those more suitable? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need it to visible at DYK resolution as the hook doesn't state that it's prominent from the front of the building, just that's it's prominent and the "(pictured)" part is after the name of the church, not the name the Star of David bit. All in all I think it interesting. I grew up in the Anglican faith and I don't think I've ever been to a church with a Star of David featuring prominently. TarnishedPathtalk12:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under DYK guidelines, being cited is sufficient. (And as an aside, red brick churches are common... painting over the original brickwork just to be trendy? Though I'll be honest, I only included "as was the style at the time" for the Simpsons reference) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that angle is fine but as someone for whom church architecture is my jam, stars of David are not common in churches, but they're also not particularly rare. If we stick with Chris's Simpsons reference, it would be best suited for a quirky slot. P.S. I moved this hook to its present location because we had another Canadian church running in the image slot a few days before, so I think moving it out of the image slot would be OK here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one opposed to the Simpsons reference being in the hook? I wasn't even aware that it was supposed to be a Simpsons reference, and I'm someone who tends to be at least somewhat familiar with Simpsons memes and the like. I imagine it might also go over the heads of readers in countries where the series isn't as popular.
The Simpsons hook is funny, and I clocked it immediately, but you're correct that objectively the hook is not interesting. This seems like it should be an April fools thing. TheBritinator (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears that both ALT0 and ALT1 have their issues, would everyone either be okay with ALT2, or perhaps with a different hook angle altogether? Since this is scheduled for next week, I'm not going to pull it yet, but we do need to reach a resolution either way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the final call on the hook is, as we are running a photograph of a Canadian, Protestant, brick, 19th century church building in today's DYK, wouldn't it be redundant to run another similar photograph so soon afterwards? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the original comments, I see ambiguity. The hook fact is that they painted the masonry red to emulate the fashions of the time, rather than because painting bricks red was fashionable. Losing the "which was the style at the time", we could go " ... that congregants of the Talbot Street Baptist Church(pictured) painted their church red so it would be more fashionable?" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some architects and clients at the time liked a consistent red color, which actually rarely resembled the true color of brick. This type of painted brick is fairly widespread across eastern North America. What's odd about this church is that it was stripped and restored, which is uncommon given the expense, but I'm not sure the sources go into detail on this; I don't have access to borrow the Tausky & Distefano source on IA. Without that, I can't say I find any of these hooks especially interesting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source only says "... the members of the congregation did their best to follow the developing fad for red brick by painting their bichromatic exterior in the single fashionable colour. The Christian Reformed congregation that now owns the church has maintained it admirably. They have exposed the white brick with its red-brick accents." Frankly, I think the idea that bricks had to be painted red is interesting because it's so commonly the default that many people don't realize it's an artificial construct. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like "... that the mostly white-brick Talbot Street Baptist Church was painted red due to a Victorian design fad, then restored to its original condition in the 20th century?" Not sure that fully works with the source. I wouldn't personally pull the originally approved hook (I don't pull hooks on DYKINT grounds, I just bump them because other queuers might consider them interesting) but I think combining the fact of the fad and the restoration is more interesting and helps align with the image as well. Just a thought. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source doesn't specify when the church was painted red, unfortunately. If we want to go that route, we can do "... that the Talbot Street Baptist Church was painted red to make it more fashionable, but has since been returned to its original condition?" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still have reservations about the photo for two reasons: 1) We have a similar image of a 19th century Canadian church up today, so it's a bit redundant (use the c. 1910 postcard if we must have a photo of this church too); 2) (selfishly, perhaps) I'd like to see the photo of the Daylit Gallery run per nom template discussion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the interestingness of the polychrome brick hook depends a bit on actually seeing the photo. But I have no issues with bumping this to a later prep once a few more open up. Whether to move Daylit Gallery to an image slot is a separate choice for promoters and queuers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note to promoters and queuers: For clarity, the discussion about the Daylit Gallery nom concerns Cielquiparle's ALT5a hook—which in my view is the best of the lot (with or without the photo). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the heads-up! Didn't mean to step on any toes. (Perhaps that should be written someplace in the "rules".) Also, please note that I specifically said "with or without the photo" in my comment above, as well as avowing acting "selfishly, perhaps" in previous comment on the matter. In this case, I was actually referring to the syntax of the hook itself (see Lunchballer comment re: the meaning of "utility" in nom template). Again, no ill will intended. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We also now use three variants of the church's name: "First Christian Reformed Church", "Talbot Street Baptist Church", and "Former Talbot Street Baptist Church", which seems a tad muddled. A minor point that might merit improvement nonetheless. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was called Talbot Street Baptist Church when it was built and painted red, and thus should be called that in the hook. The caption should be either First CRC or indicate that it is no longer the Talbot Street Baptist Church, either will do but I thought the latter was better. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to, that would be awesome, but please don't go out of your way for it! For now, I'd prefer to pick a slightly clearer image — any thoughts on swapping it for the picture of 337 (in the lead) or 330 (in § Development)? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69, either would be fine, thanks. (And I was going to take pictures of other buildings in that area as well, so it wouldn't be too much of a hassle from me - it's a 20 minute train ride from where I actually have to go tomorrow.) – Epicgenius (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the "under discussion" tag so this set can be queued when convenient for a queue mover. If a better photo becomes available it can be added in queue. (I think this is fine as is FWIW.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGreatEditor024 and Crisco 1492: I can see that concerns about the sourcing in this article have been raised and addressed before, but I still have questions about a few more of them. Specifically, I'd appreciate clarification on whether these sources demonstrate a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in their subject area.
This CIA report, which is used for the hook fact. (Is American military intelligence really trustworthy on the subject of Ukrainian agriculture?)
AgroReview, for which I can't find any editorial staff
There may be more that I haven't spot-checked. I've also tagged a couple of sentences without citations — I presume these just need a footnote copied from somewhere else and are not actually unsourced. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A small note: Unlike AgroReview, UBN is an independent media organization founded in 2018 by former investment banker Andrew Pryma and has a named editorial team of 20 team members. Should be okay. ⁓☆⁓⁓ PaulasBunt (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA source is accurate in that it explicitly notes in the foreword that its contents are based substantially on Soviet statistics, which may reflect deliberate Soviet propaganda as well as Soviet errors in collection and interpretation of the raw data. Thus, there is no independent source for the sheep population in 1938—five to six years after the peak of the Holodomor. The hook cannot go this way.
(The CIA is not military intelligence.) Wikipedia has long relied on CIA assessments and data (ie the World Factbook before it was discontinued). In general, I would find a report produced for internal intelligence purposes and not declassified until long after the entity it covered had ceased to exist (better link than what's above) to be relatively reliable. It wasn't being produced for any kind of propaganda purposes given its declassification date; the incentives of classified intelligence-gatherers are generally to produce accurate reports. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations, everyone! I don't think I have further sourcing questions; all that needs addressing are the {{cn}}s I added yesterday, as far as I can see. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to emphasize once again that the CIA does not regard the data—including the figure of 6.4 million sheep—as definitive. In addition to the passage already cited they wrote: ... it should be noted that this report is descriptive rather than analytical in nature and is intended to serve as a basis for further analysis, not as an end in itself. It is worth noting that a study prepared for the internal use of the Soviet Party regarding the impact of the forced collectivization cites different figures, representing the official statistics of the Soviet Union for the sheep population in Ukraine in 1938. Specifically, the publication Gosplanizdat, Moscow/Leningrad, 1940, Section II, Table 4 on page 2 lists the total sheep population of the Ukrainian SSR as exactly 2,866,600 animals (1,917,400 adult animals + 949,200 lambs) as of January 1, 1938. The CIA considers its data unverifiable, while the Soviet source—as an official statistic originating from the country in question—is also unreliable when subjected to source criticism. Why should a hook containing incorrect/potential information appear on the Main Page? Is there no other hook possible? ⁓☆⁓⁓ PaulasBunt (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Paula - while I have no problem finding CIA reports generally to be reliable sources, if the underlying data is compromised, then we should reject the source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed not to see a response from @TheGreatEditor024 on the issues with this sourcing, but I agree with @PaulasBunt that the underlying USSR data in the CIA report is not trustworthy enough for the main page, and attributing it in the hook would make the hook clunky. I am going to pull this from prep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man, I am really busy, I am in a new university and in a new hostel. So, I cannot be active like I was earlier. But, let me read it again and then Ill give a response. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 10. We have a total of 366 nominations, of which 173 have been approved, a gap of 193 nominations that has decreased in size by 22 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"that one of the first known books by David Unaipon, an Aboriginal Australian author, was not printed under his name for more than 70 years?" Unless I'm missing something, I don't seem to see this fact mentioned in the article. (Pinging @TarnishedPath, MCE89, and Storye book:)
Ravenpuff only moved the word "an Aboriginal Australian author" to after "David Unaipon" so I do not think the meaning has changed, only some copyediting. JuniperChill (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill in what I promoted it was "... one of the first known books by an Aboriginal Australian author ...". After the change it was "... one of the first known books by David Unaipon ..." big difference in meaning.
Supporting what I promoted from the article is By 1925, Unaipon had produced a book-length manuscript ... and in 2001 a new edition of Myths and Legends of the Australian Aboriginals was published under Unaipon's name and original title, edited by the scholars Adam Shoemaker and Stephen Muecke and "Unaipon has been widely described as Australia's first published Aboriginal author; it was not until the 1960s that the next Aboriginal writer would have their work commercially published".
Notably I adjusted the hook slightly to account for there being another aboriginal author who had been published prior to Unaipon. Whether what had been published classifies as a "book" is not clear to me. TarnishedPathtalk23:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
* ALT0b: ... that the first known booklet by an Aboriginal Australian author, David Unaipon(pictured), was not printed under his name for more than 70 years? (This is the original hook ALT0, with wording change: "book" → "booklet").Storye book (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book, there's no question about whether what Unaipon produced was a book. It's 280 pages in legnth. The question I had (refer to the nomination) is whether another publication by an aboriginal elder by the name of William Russell was a book. (see Gandangara#Burragorang Valley mission, "The Gully", and Goulburn "blacks' camp" which states William Russell, a respected Gandangara elder, was a Burragorang resident and wrote an important autobiography just before his death in 1914 at the age of 84). Russell's work is either 27 or 33 pages in length. This is why I adjusted the wording. TarnishedPathtalk06:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Very happy to discuss further and fix any issues, but it seems like the question of whether the hook is mentioned in the article has been resolved? I'm not sure what else needs to be done apart from someone editing the hook to match the original meaning that was promoted. MCE89 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MCE89 here. The hook which I promoted reflected the article. If that wording is restored or something which maintains the meaning, are there any other issues to be resolved? TarnishedPathtalk06:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89 and TarnishedPath: I should just say that the original wording as promoted ("one of the first known books by an Aboriginal Australian author, David Unaipon") doesn't give the intended meaning – it still refers to the first book by Unaipon, rather than the first book by an Aboriginal author. The following hook, with a slight addition of two words, should be good:
ALT0c: ... that one of the first known books by an Aboriginal Australian author, written byDavid Unaipon, was not printed under his name for more than 70 years?
I slotted it into June 12 and bumped Olivia Rodrigo's "Begged" - Gwen seemed like a better fit for the 12 June set, and it was the clearest of the three image options. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the original video. It's there, too. I didn't immediately see any distortion with other hands but there may be filtering software being used on their faces which interferes with her hand since it is raised higher than all the other girls, I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Not convinced it's AI. That image comes from a YouTube video in August 2024 where her fingers are like that and I can't see any more dodgy fingers. @Royiswariii: may know more as uploader/may wish to screenshot something from later in the video.--Launchballer03:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what are you talking about, but I don't see anything wrong in the video. It's probably just the camera angle or bad screenshot. I rewatch the video many times. In solidarity, ROY is WARTalk!23:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that all the so-called stars use these filters now. I was trying to get this acknowledgement, but it didn't come. I think it is very simple to pull another frame from the video without her hand. That's the solution, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[4] I used FFmpeg to probe 300 frames from the 4K video, from the time the camera pans to her to the moment it leaves, which is something like five seconds. It then gave me 300 png files to choose from. I uploaded the first one that looked good, but there's a lot to look through so maybe I will give it another go later. But at least we have a hand-less file in place for the moment. The original file was 314 × 652 (76 KB). The current replacement is 966 × 1,989 (1.26 MB), which is one of the advantages of using ffmpeg. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 and Epicgenius: I'm not precisely sure what's going on with the anglicanchurch.net source, but it does seem to be a primary source, so I'm a bit jittery about basing three full sections and about a third of the last section on it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There could be an argument for WP:ABOUTSELF; however, https://anglicanchurch.net/ appears to be the website for the North American Anglican Church, whereas our subject is the Philippine Independent Catholic Church, so that argument would fail. I agree the extensive usage of the source is problematic. TarnishedPathtalk02:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron It is a primary source (a concordat of communion, basically a memorandum of understanding between the PICC and the ACNA), although I think it meets the conditions for using it. Quick rundown:
The ICFI attributed the disagreement to the IFI's adoption of a revised constitution and canons in 1977 that its says embraced congregational polity and departed from the church's previous "Catholic ethos." Attributes the statement to the ICFI.
The SEC registration was revoked in 2003 and since 2019 the church has formally been registered as the International Conference of Philippine Independent Catholic Churches of Jesus Christ. Seemingly uncontested basic fact about the church's formal name.
Section on "Doctrine and practices": The concordat outlines what the church defines its own doctrine to be and attributes it to the PICC. It's pretty standard in religion articles to use a denomination's own doctrinal statements as sources unless there are contested facts and I don't think there are here.
The ICFI is organized into eight provinces: Metro Manila; Northern Luzon; Eastern Visayas and Japan; Mindanao; United States; United Kingdom, European Union and Madagascar. The Philippine provinces collectively encompass 18 dioceses: Basic, uncontested descriptive statement of the church's organizational structure, requires no interpretation.
His successor as supreme bishop of the ICFI was Armando L. de la Cruz, who has served since 1994. Another basic statement of fact that requires no interpretation.
Basically, I think this meets the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. I wish we had more secondary sources but I have used them for statements were there are competing claims or where interpretation might be required. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that the death of a 26-year-old woman caused the band Kulay to take six months off?
@Launchballer, Tbhotch, and Dclemens1971: I mean, she was kind of a founding member of the band. I think it's a little bit disappointing for readers to click through expecting there to be a more interesting story than there actually is, and I think this hook is still fine to just play straight? Or if you have something else, I'd be happy to review and slot that in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for linking! I think "matters of taste don't belong to errors" doesn't apply because reviewing admin challenges can cover things like taste and intriguingness. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like that option. It's more intriguing than the "bandmate" fix I floated at ERRORS, which seems obvious that a band would take time out after the death of a bandmate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd be inclined to go with something about one of their tracks being remixxed by Fatboy Slim. That's because they were big when I was a teen/young adult. I don't know how broad the appeal would be for that though. TarnishedPathtalk02:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Zzz plant's is the better suggestion, though I'd leave the album name out. (Fatboy Slim's remix of Burn is well worth the eight minutes.)--Launchballer02:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, Narutolovehinata5, Cielquiparle, I'm not sure if the image is truly in the public domain. I've done a search and, while it seems the source of the image is this Facebook post from a Filipino government official, it is unclear if this was a work created by them as part of their regularly prescribed official duties (and thus PD). I've been unable to find information about whether this official (or another official/government employee) is the person who took this photograph, not simply posted it. Have you been able to find additional info about its source? Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 02:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If need be given the late hour we can move Tom Pritchard back into the image slot. My understanding is that Filipino government PD applies to the federal government and may not cover local officials; I am not sure whether local officials are considered agents of the national government or are completely autonomous as in the United States. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've done some digging and it appears to have been taken at a meet and greet at a concert organised by the official. Not sure if actually attending the concert counts as regular duties, so suggest swapping to Viriditas's image.--Launchballer03:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have all of the major frames from her five second close-up in the video. If anyone cares to watch the video and save a link to the frame they prefer (timestamp may help if you can pinpoint it), I can upload that exact one. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went ahead and looked at the rest of the 299 frames. It turns out that I got lucky. Simply by chance, I happened to upload the best composed frame (but not necessarily the best posed). I thought this was by accident, but looking closer into it, it turns out the reason is because the cameraperson began their close-up on the subject at that particular moment, making it more likely that the best frame would be found at the beginning of the shot. There are better posed shots later in the five second sequence, but they are poorly composed due to the movement of the subject and the other members of the band that interfere with the shot. This makes a bit of sense as it was at the beginning of the close-up for this particular member of the band, meaning it was more likely that the best composed shot would be found at the beginning of the sequence, rather than at the middle or the end. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a "first" hook, this is the usual sanity check just to make sure that the claim is airtight. There are two sources but only one is accessible, so if anyone has access to the second source, hopefully that works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[2] (Springer Nature link): Allbutt clinical thermometer was the first practical device to become commercially available. Sir Thomas Clifford Allbutt (1836–1925) was a celebrated British physician. He spent 20 years working in Leeds during which time he devised the small clinical thermometer. A local company, Harvey and Reynolds, first manufactured this special thermometer in 1867, followed by Thackeray in London. Or the other? ⁓☆⁓⁓ PaulasBunt (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it turns out that the article is open access, so yes tat should work. Though it seems that the hook or article do not match that since the claim is "first commercially available practical device"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 suggested on my talk page an Indonesia set for August 17, which will be the 81st anniversary of the proclamation of independence (we missed the 80th, unfortunately). I wanted to reach out to the broader DYK community to see if there is a consensus for a special occasion set. Myself, Juxlos, and Jeromi Mikhael have already discussed the possibility of handling a range of Indonesia-related subjects. Juxlos has already prepared Raijua (island) and Mandai (food), and I should be good for an art-related topic and a film-related topic at the very least. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this, but the issue is that Raijua and Mandai would probably miss unless a special exemption is granted, since both were created and nominated outside the two month mark (meaning the earliest date they should have been created or expanded was on June 17). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's what "expired" meant. I suppose I can make more if needed, but I think it would be great if those 2 can get a couple extra days (since, well, they would be promoted sometime before Aug 17, likely something like Aug 13/14) Juxlos (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the guidelines allow for two-months holding for most special occasion hooks. I personally think holding them would make sense, as a) It's only a couple days, and b) it was a good faith error. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support a special set for the occasion, along with a TIMEOUT extension for Raijua and Mandai if they are needed for the set. (We seem to have no shortage of Indonesia hooks at DYK.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that the general consensus is that when WP:DYKUBM is activated, it requires one additional QPQ per nomination. This means that if you nominated one article, you need two QPQs. Two articles, three QPQs. Three articles, four QPQs, and so forth. However, the software (where it says Number of QPQs required:) still treats it as requiring double, so the software is still correct when only one article is nominated. However, it would show that two nominated articles require four QPQs, three nominated articles require six QPQs, etc. (In other words, the software treats it as 2n while the actual requirements are n+1) I assume because of the fact that the vast majority of DYK noms only have one nominated article and was accidentally set to require double. See Template:Did you know nominations/Tortilla as an example of when the nom provided four nominations when only three is required. Therefore, I'm leaving this comment so that someone could fix it so that the software doesn't say four QPQs are needed for a double nom. (Link to previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_213#WP:DYKUBM) JuniperChill (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done 
Pulled based on these issues, which warranted maintenance templates. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Doing... Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}