Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
"Did you know..."
DiscussionWT:DYK
RulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
StatsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Contents

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
December 25 1
December 27 1
January 31 1
February 6 1
February 9 1
February 26 1
March 8 1
March 12 2
March 14 2
March 15 1
March 17 1
March 18 3 1
March 19 2
March 23 1
March 24 1
March 25 1
March 26 1
April 2 1
April 4 1
April 6 1
April 7 1
April 9 1
April 10 1
April 11 1
April 12 1
April 13 1
April 14 2
April 18 1
April 20 2
April 22 1
April 23 1
April 24 3 1
April 25 2
April 26 4 3
April 27 2 1
April 28 3 3
April 29 1
April 30 4 2
May 1 3 2
May 2 3 1
May 3 9 4
May 4 5 1
May 5 6 3
May 6 2 2
May 7 6 4
May 8 4 3
May 9 5 1
May 10 4 4
May 11 6 4
May 12 6 4
May 13 8 5
May 14 11 5
May 15 9 6
May 16 7 4
May 17 8 5
May 18 8 3
May 19 8 5
May 20 14 6
May 21 11 4
May 22 11 3
May 23 7 3
May 24 7 3
May 25 5 2
May 26 9 3
May 27 10 7
May 28 9 6
May 29 10 3
May 30 9 5
May 31 10
June 1 9 5
June 2 8 2
June 3 7 1
June 4 6 2
June 5 8 2
June 6 3
June 7 2
Total 330 134
Last updated 09:12, 7 June 2019 UTC
Current time is 09:36, 7 June 2019 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

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

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

To nominate an article[edit]

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

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


II.
Write the nomination.

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

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

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

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

How to review a nomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Backlogged?[edit]

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

Where is my hook?[edit]

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

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

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

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

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on December 25[edit]

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash
A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash

** ALT1:... that ...security forces in India also use slingshots for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir? Source: The Central Reserve Police Force uses a variety of weapons, including pellet guns, tear gas, and slingshots that hurl stones when glass marbles aren’t available. National Geographic

Source: "The army has recommended replacing pellet guns used by paramilitary forces and state police for crowd control in Kashmir with less lethal weapons such as sound cannons, pepper shotguns and chilli grenades." Hindustan Times
  • Comment: image is entirely optional, only text DYK or text+Image DYK can also be considered. ALT2 if approved would need a different image 2

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk), DBigXray (talk), and Kautilya3 (talk). Nominated by DBigXray (talk) at 18:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC).


QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg Everything looks great. Can you pick a hook and image should I can approve it? All hooks should work, and both images do as well. DannyS712 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712 test, thanks a lot for your kind comment and review. we did a quick poll among ourselves, we feel that ALT0 is the best among the three along with pic 1, please proceed with ALT0. DBigXray? 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Also notify User:DannyS712 DBigXray? 05:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: thanks. The test sig was a mistake, the real reviewer is this account. I'll pass this now.
Thank you User:DannyS712. I made a minor correction in the caption above. regards. DBigXray? 13:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: still Symbol confirmed.svg passes --DannyS712 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Put this on hold, please. Unless I manage to read the entirety and (possibly) get over my initial feelings of slapping a POV tag. If you see no editorial efforts of mine within the next 48 hrs. at the article, feel free to proceed. WBGconverse 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712:--This's is a blatant POV piece; manifested as an highly effective praise of the Indian machinery. The author has been careful in weeding out any source (of which there is an abundance) that criticizes the methods.
That I'm not involved with the article/ broader area in any editorial manner (and nether with the author in any manner), I don't see any reason to not perform a second-review.
This's a solid ?N decline from me on grounds of Rule 4 (NPOV). WBGconverse 14:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Winged Blades of Godric thanks for sharing your opinion on the article. The article authored by DiplomatTesterMan as it stands right now covers all aspect of the crowd control in J&K and covers the victims from both sides. This article has recently been created so it does "not" need to pass a GA criteria for being able to pass the DYK nomination stage. That said there is always some room for improvement everywhere, even in a GA/ FA article. So lets contribute collaboratively. If you can elaborate your specific problems with the article on the article talk page and your suggestions on how it can be addressed we all can see what more can be done to improve this article. regardsDBigXray? 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: I'll re-read the article. I'm sorry I didn't catch this when doing my review --DannyS712 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 it would be very helpful for the article if after your review you can also share (here or on article talk) your suggestions to improve if you find any "major" issues. regards DBigXray? 16:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: The article mentions in the lead the number of protestors killed in 2018 - "51 rioters being killed during clashes and 37 rioters being killed during encounters". The article mentions how over 100 protestors were killed in police firing in 2010. The article mentions how "thousands of people in Jammu and Kashmir have suffered pellet wounds, hundreds have eye-injuries, and at least 14 people have died due to their pellet injuries." The article also talks about "One of the youngest pellet guns victims is a 19 month old child, Heeba Jan, who suffered injuries in 2018. Another young person to suffer from pellet injuries is Insha Malik (Insha Ahmed), who was left blind as a result of her injuries." The article also mentions pellet guns are criticised. The article also mentions how tear gas shells have killed people. It also says how curfews have been held for long periods... Winged Blades of Godric is inaccurate according to me in saying that this is NPOV. I would request someone else to go through it, or even better..... expand it so the NPOV is sorted and we can get over with this, rather than say that this is a highly effective praise of the Indian machinery which should be meaningless here... I also think Winged Blades of Godric is throwing his own highly effective propaganda around if they can't help improve the article despite clearly knowing its faults and saying they are uninvolved despite "trying" to touch it up.
@DannyS712: Even after this if you think it is NPOV should I create an entirely new section in the article called "Criticism" and stuff it with criticism of the methods of India dating all the way back to 1947, about the horrendousness of Indian crowd control methods and how severely inhumane and barbaric they are... that is according to the sources Winged Blades is probably talking about? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Without an explanation from WBG about what specifically they object to, and given that, having re-read this, I believe it to be NPOV, this review is still a Symbol confirmed.svg pass from me. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg The page itself is misleading by its name. There is no mention of neutral sources like local newspapers, UNHRC or any representative report of other countries. The page should be renamed as Kashmir Uprising and content included from those hundreds of neutral sources out there and can anyone explain how can be a 19 month old child as a rioter?  MehrajMir (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mehrajmir13: in that case, I'm going to recuse myself from this DYK, and ask for another reviewer: Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --DannyS712 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 I note that you are having an ongoing content dispute with me at [1] another article and you have followed me here. Per WP:BATTLE you should not really be using these DYK nominations as battle grounds to attack editors you are having content disputes with. The language used in your comment clearly shows that you are at an impasse.
  • There is nothing misleading about the article title, it has a specific scope and the article covers its scope quite well.
  • Your suggestion to rename this as "Kashmir Uprising" is entirely frivolous because that article on that topic already exists at 2016–17 Kashmir unrest.
  • After your comment I have included the UNCHR report from a local Kashmiri newspaper. I note that the article already includes criticism from notable organisations such as Amnesty International. DBigXray? 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Mehrajmir13, that is unfortunately not a productive comment. You very well know that Crowd control in Kashmir and Kashmir uprising can never be the same article. If you would like an article on the latter, you are free to create one. As far as this article is concerned, if you are able to make any suggestions for improvements, either before or after DYK, I am sure DBigXray will take them on board and I will be happy to help to the extent I can. The current sources include the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC and Reuters. They are from "third countries" as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the renaming that is suggested in the link above will occur and I have commented the same on the talk page WP:BOLD. The other points raised related to the sources cited can be addressed accordingly, and do not have anything to with this DYK as far as I can tell now since Winged Blades doubts have also been addressed as far as I can tell since there in no reply from his side here above. I request this DYK to continue for now unless no one has any other page rename suggestions, and inclusion of sources which haven't been used, can carry on. Again I repeat, as far as the DYK issue is concerned, I think it can proceed as normal. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't have to be "WP:BOLD" to reply on talk page. Fact that you are completely misunderstanding the concerns and throwing a bunch of personal attacks as per your talk page comments,[2] it only means that that the issue has not resolved. A simple concern, that you are still not understanding, is that this is not a normal crowd but protesters, and this issue doesn't concerns entire Jammu and Kashmir but only Kashmir Valley. The problem is not just with the title but article itself.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 you are acting naive now. Crowd control is the standard phrase used internationally, if you arent aware of the standard terms then knowledge is just a quick google search away, () which turns up a large number of reliable sources that are using this term.
  • DiplomatTesterMan (You do not have to respond to Mehrajmir) let's wait for a neutral DYK reviewer to come along and review this, as I already noted above, Mehrajmir13 has followed my contributions to reach this DYK and to continue his content dispute with me. The points he has raised are clearly frivolous WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of stalling tactics. DBigXray? 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh Congratulations to you, that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. You have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that you have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this.
  • The comments by Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article) have already been replied to both here and on the talk page. WBG has also warned him against this behavior [5]. The consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article, there is absolutely no consensus for any kind of merge or rename. DBigXray? 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I note here, that I will wait for comments from a new DYK reviewer, so that this DYK page does not become another WP:BATTLEGROUND.DBigXray? 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed, as noted above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Simple requests: who, what, where and why? I made a few edits but have already been reverted: one to explain that the region belongs to India, and to explain who is using these weapons. I am not interested in an edit war, only in resolving this nomination. I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period.
  • Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?
  • Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • SusanLesch, my aim was also not to start an edit war. I reverted my own edit of your edit. The lead is again as you had put it. Thank you for these points. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SusanLesch, For your point - "I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period." This article clearly has SOPs and laws and incidents and equipment which are prior to 2016 -17. There are plently more incidents which can be added prior to 2016. Hence the shift to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest isn't needed apart from the reason of WP:TOOBIG also. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @SusanLesch:, You have written - "Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?" It already says that. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?" I have added two lines to the background section accordingly. I also mentioned security forces in the lead again. I think all your points should be covered with these answer? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: SusanLesch, You had written "I am not interested in an edit war". This is exactly how edit wars start. I will let others see how to handle this since this is taking too much energy and I don't have the energy to explain why so many points you have written above are nonsensical in my opinion stemming from not being able to understand what this article is about and seeming to not understand that other Wikipedia articles already cover your points which you want to add here. I am nominating this for article for AFD since if it can't pass a simple DYK then I don't think it should even be an article. Regards. Happy editing. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • AFD link - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @DBX and DTm:- This's getting more and more farcical with the passage of time. This article (though on a notable topic) will need a huge lot of work to be NPOV-free (and be DYK suitable) and rebut concerns of Cforking. Please withdraw this nom. WBGconverse 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    SusanLesch thanks a lot for giving a detailed review along with your concerns. IMHO this is much more helpful than some of the other comments that were made above. DTM is on vacation and I will take time to fix the issues that you pointed. Thanks for your patience. DBigXray?
Thank you, DBigXray. Something tells me there's a chance this could work out. P.S. Maybe you can edit down the section I added about the UN report. It sticks out like a sore thumb, maybe that's allright. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WBG that you ought to withdraw your nomination unless one of you is going to fix this article now. Four days have passed since the second rejection, yet the original authors have made zero contributions. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. reviewing material and sources. DBigXray? 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working After a much needed break from this article, I am now able to shift to this article again and will take up each point raised one by one, as calmly as possible with the patience this one requires. This is a difficult article and will be given due consideration accordingly, as I had been giving accordingly when I first created it. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a new section on the talk page of the article (Talk:Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Points_raised_in_the_DYK) that will deal with all the points raised by SusanLesch one by one. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg, ALT3 is ready to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "the plastic of the soft-nosed shells easily melts and releases a gas that disperses the crowd. These soft-nosed shells cannot cause fatal injuries. According to CRPF officers, another point is that there have been advancements in tear smoke munitions allowing them to be used more prominently as compared to the other crowd-control weapons" with "The plastic of the soft-nosed shells melts very easily, releasing a gas that helps disperse the crowds. So the shells cannot be fatal in themselves. Secondly, we have made advancements in tear smoke munitions (TSM) that can be used more prominently than other crowd-control weapons". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. DBigXray? 05:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing appears to be reasonable now. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, Thanks a lot for your kind review and response. Can you please mark this DYK with subst:DYKtick, so that it can proceed. DBigXray? 07:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll let someone else respond to the re-review you've requested, as I haven't checked other areas of DYK compliance. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg article should be reviewed again. As noted above, the issues have been fixed. DBigXray? 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on December 27[edit]

XIX Army Corps

  • ... that the XIX Army Corps, a Nazi era German Panzer corps, fought its way from Luxembourg to the English Channel in just ten days? Source: Guderian, Heinz (2003) [1950]. Erinnerungen eines Soldaten. Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3879436932. OCLC 460817326.

Created by Ted52 (talk). Nominated by DannyS712 (talk) at 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - I'm probably just blind, but I don't see where the article explicitly supports the material in the DYK hook and cites a source supporting it
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I find the article very interesting and comprehensive; I can tell the creator worked very hard on it and that is much appreciated! However, I'm afraid this will require work before it can be eligible. I'd suggest first making sure all material is supported by a reliable sources and then requesting a copy-edit. I haven't fully reviewed for neutrality yet but will soon. Best of wishes, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: can you take a look at this? I'm not any where to as knowledgeable about this page as you are... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: All material can be supported by sources, but I was of the impression that citing the same page over and over again is just bad style. I could go through the work of citing every paragraph? Ted52 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Ted52. Since you're using an inline citation style, then the general rule is that there should be a cite for at least every paragraph, and if a paragraph has material from multiple citations you may sometimes want to distribute multiple refs within that paragraph. Using a cite multiple times it's not a problem; it's certainly better than having unsourced material. The following sections in particular need to be sourced better:
  • Wizna and Brest-Litovsk (6–16 September 1939)
  • The "German-Soviet Parade" and the Conclusion of the Campaign (17 September - 6 October 1939)
  • Preparations
  • Attack towards the Meuse (10–13 May 1940)
  • In the Somme Basin (17–20 May 1940)
  • Towards Dunkirk (21–29 May 1940)
  • Panzergruppe Guderian and southern Redeployment (28 May - 9 June 1940)
  • Southern Offensive (10–22 June 1940)
  • Panzergruppe 2
  • XIX Mountain Army Corps
It's an interesting read, and again, I can tell you worked hard on it. Let me know if you have any questions.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Template:Reply to:SkyGazer 512Very well, will do. Is there a way I can template one reference and use it for the next? Reentering the same book's info over and over again is cumbersome, but I also don't want to do the thing where it's like "p. 100 - 200", because that's silly. I would like to preferably use the same reference over and over again for like 60% of the passages you inquire about, but with a slightly different page notation each time. The reason why most of the paragraphs aren't cited is exactly that 'cumbersome' functionality of having to build the reference from scratch everytime. Ted52 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ted52: Well, I suppose you could convert to using {{sfn}} refs. Basically how that works is you have two reference sections; one of them has a list of sources and the other usually just contains {{reflist}}. For the list of sources section, you include |ref=harv at the end of each citation template. Then, whenever you want to use a reference in the article, use the coding {{sfn|Author's last name|Year the author wrote it|pp=Page number range (or p=single page number)}}, and make sure that in the list of sources section each ref has a last= parameter and either a year= or date= parameter. If you do everything correctly, when you click on a sfn ref used in the article, it will be abbreviated and take you to the ref section with the reflist; then if you click on the highlighted ref there, it will take you to that ref's entry in the list of full sources, which only need to be listed once. It sounds confusing, yes, but once you get used to it it's not as bad as it seems. The documentation page for the template gives a lot more details. I can give you some examples if you'd like and I could help you convert the refs for this one. It's often a good idea to use it when there are book citations which you use a large number of pages from. Another technique sometimes used is having sfn for some sources and the other "main" ref style for others, such as using sfn for only books.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
An example of a page using sfn for only the book refs is Chinese alligator (e.g., the abbreviated Reading & Miller 2000, p. 72. in the reflist which links to the full ref in the sources subsection: Reading, Richard P.; Miller, Brian (2000). Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0313308161. Retrieved December 9, 2018.). Molly Morgan is an example of a page which uses sfn for all references except one. If you have any further questions, please let me know; this can seem quite confusing. I highly recommend that you read the documentation page for the sfn template if you might want to use this style.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
(btw, Ted52, the correct coding for a ping is {{reply to|USERNAME HERE}}, not {{reply to:USERNAME HERE}} :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Another way to repeat citations of the same source, specifying different pages, is to define a reference by name (e.g. SOURCE) and combine that with a page number template e.g.
    <ref name="SOURCE"/>{{rp|6-42}}
    Repeat as needed, just give relevant page numbers each time. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────G'day all, I just noticed this on the Milhist alert list. I thought I'd give you a heads-up that Guderian was the commanding general of this formation at the time, and we need to be careful about accepting what he says as gospel, given he is probably too close to the subject. It would be much better if this hook was cited to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. As a general observation, the article relies far too heavily on Guderian's writings, needs more independent reliable sources, and we need to be wary of the clean Wehrmacht trope associated with many Wehrmacht generals trying to whitewash their activities during the war. Also, the article should be at XIX Army Corps (Wehrmacht) IAW pre-emptive disambiguation arrangements for military formations per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: It's been a while since this nom has received any activity; would it be possible for you to cite the hook to a source that is independent of the subject and reliable, per Peacemaker67's suggestion? Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512:@Peacemaker67: I think I have been quite careful in pointing out the rather obvious flaws with Guderian's writings in terms of the war crimes committed by the German units during the operation, and used them strictly for the purpose of the unit's military movement. Yes, there are authors I could cite - Piekalkiewicz, Mazouwer, Shirer, Frieser, Kershaw, Bishop and others have all at least tangentially written about XIX Army Corps, especially as it was so central to the operational success of the whole campaign. But - and this a big but -, they all go back to Guderian's writings as their source for any troop movements they describe. You'll reliably find his books in their bibliographies, and, if inline citations are used, they either reference him or often earlier authors that also referenced him. You're not going to find precise primary source information about what battle lines the units were to take on Guderian's orders or what crossroads they were to advance to or what towns were or weren't captured in a single day outside of Guderian, who got to use his personal notes for the information at hand. I tried desperately to staff up any information that could be double checked, but even good old Percy Schramm couldn't help me, as his war diaries don't start before August of 1940. So, if it's okay to just phantom cite Guderian through other authors, I guess I can try and do that, but that's hardly intellectually honest. Ted52 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you very much for your work on the article, Ted52. Looking through this nomination and the article, I think it would be best if I let somebody do the rest of the review. It would be nice to have a second opinion on whether the sourcing is sufficient now. Also, it is a really long article and I have been doing quite a bit in both real life and Wikipedia lately, so I'm not sure I would be able to take thoroughly look over so many paragraphs and sources myself. In addition, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with the article topic (although it is very interesting) or the languages the refs use. Therefore, I'm requesting a new reviewer. I apologize for taking so long to get back.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 00:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg I appreciate the substantial effort that has been put into this article, and I would like to see this nomination move forward. Before I pick up the review, I have a couple suggestions. The article's introduction is very small compared to the text in the main body. I think it should be expanded to adequate summarize the key points of the article. I also note that there are several properly licensed photos in the article which would be suitable for a photo hook. It would be nice to feature this nomination in the photo slot. Once the introduction is expanded, I will go ahead with the full review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ted52, thank you for the expanded introduction. It looks good at first glance. I will start reading through in more detail later today. It might take me a few days to do a full review because this is a big article, but I promise to do a bit each day until we are done! Flibirigit (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, your contriubtions to the introduction are noted here. Would you like to help out with this nomination? Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, thanks for the acknowledgement. I actually came here as I need to do some QPQ reviews, saw that this needed an intro, and started it. I do mean to extend on it to cover France but have not returned – real life and all that! – but I will get to it within a few days. I can't be a reviewer now that I've added half an intro, but I will help out if I can. Certainly the article deserves main page exposure, but also a copyedit and some referencing work like including English-language titles of references. EdChem (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, thanks again for what you have do so far. I can wait a day or two if time is needed. I understand, as we all get busy. I will likely do this review in bits and pieces since it is a substantial work. Aside from the introduction, I am curious if a hook can be formed from one or more of the photos in the article. I'm also curious about limiting the very long table of contents via Template:TOC limit. We could leave each day as a header, but add one more level to the hierarchy and group them by week or battle perhaps? Flibirigit (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not getting back to this sooner. I will go over it again in more detail tomorrow and on the weekend. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ted52, EdChem, I am about halfway finished reading through the article. I will post a finished review tomorrow. I can work with the present hook, but are either of you interested in proposing a hook with a photo? Flibirigit (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Second review

Policy compliance:

QPQ: Red XN - ?
Overall: Symbol question.svg The article is still new enough and long enough as in the first review. I found nothing that makes the article biased in favour of either side of the war, and is neutral in tone. I alos detected no plagiarism issues. The hook is interesting, mentioned inline, and is cited by a combination of sources. There is not photo used in this nomination as of yet. The nominator User:DannyS712 has more than five DYK credits, therefore QPQ is required. There are still a few paragraphs which need citations, however I note a big improvement from the first review. Also, there are a few section headers which are blank. I'm unsure if more text is coming to fill these in, or if they can be removed. The introduction appears to summarize only the eastern front. It needs to be expanded with content from the western front. Flibirigit (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: qpq added --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • DannyS712, Flibirigit, I note that the 27 May 1940 and 21 June 1940 sections still remain blank, which is not allowed under DYK rules. Also, if there are any sections that are uncited, these need to be taken care of. DannyS712, do you think these can be taken care of soon? This nomination has been open since the final day of 2018, over five months ago, and really needs to be concluded. Thank you very much for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I have posted on the talk pages for Ted52 and EdChem to find out if either have time to contribute. I am willing to do copyediting, but I do not have the time or expertise to research the concerns I mentioned in my review above. If no help is coming soon, I will mark the review for closure. If that happens, I hope the article is eventually improved to GA status and nominated again for DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: It has to be noted that neither editor has edited this month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit:@Narutolovehinata5: Removed those sections. But frankly, I am no longer interested in this DYK thing. I have no idea why you guys are pursuing this if the article was previously already rejected. But whatever. Ted52 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I am sorry to hear that Ted52 no longer wishes to be involved, despite this nomination not being rejected at this time. Since there are still some unsourced sections at this time, this nomination cannot be approved at this time. I will wait a few days to see if EdChem or DannyS712 wish to continue. Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit:: It's not so much about no longer wishing to be involved and more so my dissatisfaction with the intransparency of the process. However, I am interested in keeping the article to the highest quality possible. What do you think needs more sourcing? Ted52 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Ted, thank you for be willing to continue with the article. I will compile of list of sourcing questions and post it here by tomorrow or Friday at the latest. As for the transparency of DYK, I am more than willing to answer any questions. The rules and processes for the project are outlined here at Wikipedia:Did you know. At the Wikipedia talk:Did you know page, you are also welcome to ask any questions you like. Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sourcing questions

Please see list of sourcing questions below. All paragraphs must have at least one citation at the end, as per the DYK rules. Flibirigit (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. Section: Poland Campaign-->Preparations. Last two sentences of the second paragraph are not cited.
  2. Section: Poland Campaign-->Action at Tuchola Forest (1–5 September 1939). First paragraph is not cited. Maybe it should be combined with the paragraph which follows it.
  3. Section: Western Campaign-->Preparations for the Western Campaign. Ambiguous whether citation [35] applies to some of all of lists which follow it.
  4. Section: Western Campaign-->10 May 1940. First paragraph has no citation.
  5. Section: Western Campaign-->12 May 1940. First paragraph has no citation.
  6. Section: Western Campaign-->13 May 1940. Second paragraph has no citation.
  7. Section: Western Campaign-->13 May 1940. Last paragraph has no citation at the end.
  8. Section: Western Campaign-->14 May 1940. First two paragraphs have no citations.
  9. Section: Western Campaign-->14 May 1940. Fourth paragraph has no citation at the end.
  10. Section: Western Campaign-->16 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
  11. Section: Western Campaign-->21 May 1940. Last paragraph has no citation at the end.
  12. Section: Western Campaign-->22 May 1940. Second paragraph has no citation at the end.
  13. Section: Western Campaign-->25 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
  14. Section: Western Campaign-->29 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
  15. Section: Western Campaign-->11 June 1940. First paragraph has no citation at the end.

Articles created/expanded on January 31[edit]

Lorraine 12 D

The Lorraine 12 D engine
The Lorraine 12 D engine
  • ... that the Lorraine 12D (pictured) was put into production before the design was finalized?
    • ALT1:... that the Lorraine 12D originally had a horsepower of 350 at the time it was first manufactured, but only 50 were produced before they managed to improve it to 400 horsepower?
  • Comment: Just made this, looks good and rather long

Created/expanded by Username Needed (talk). Self-nominated at 12:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Review: These aren’t bad facts. My only issue is there is no source for the hook and only one source for the article. Jhenderson 777 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ... that the Lorraine 12D was put into production before the design was finalized?(source: [6] page 9 (in french) Could somebody verify that please. [Username Needed] 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Note. I might need help on reviewing. I am not familiar with the source being reliable or not. Also I don’t know what it says since it’s in French. I tried googling this particular engine to help find sources but I didn’t find much. Jhenderson 777 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Petebutt may be able to help, he's done some work with this article recently. [Username Needed] 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There isn't much available WYSIWYG I'm afraid. The engine was developed rapidly at the start of its production, that much is clear!--Petebutt (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg (Not a full review) The article is presently ineligible because some non-lead paragraphs do not have inline citations, per D2 of the DYK Supplementary guidelines. The Variants section also has no sources. Also, as per the above, none of the hook content is sourced within the article. North America1000 11:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed the variants section, and propose a new, sourced hook. ALT2:... that the Lorraine 12D was the first french engine to reach 400 horsepower?(source: [7] page 9 (in french) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk ? contribs) 13:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that additional sourcing has been provided and a new hook as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a drive-by comment, but I don't find ALT2 to be interesting. ALT0 probably remains the best option if the source mentioned above could be confirmed as being reliable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Nominator has not edited since March 14 and has not been able to address issues with ALT0. If there is no response in a week I will mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sorry, Narutolovehinata5—they have in good faith provided an ALT2 to replace ALT0, and a drive-by comment is not a review. This nomination still has not been given a full review, and frankly needs one. Until that happens, it doesn't matter how actively the nominator is editing or not editing, so long as they return to address any issues once the review has been given. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including of the hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. For the most part it is adequately sourced: both sources are not in English so they are accepted in good faith. QPQ check is down at the moment but this appears to be the nominator's first nomination (at least from what I can tell on his talk page) so no QPQ is needed. Concerns have been raised on the reliability of the French source, and while I took a look at it and it seemed professional, I'd rather leave this analysis to a French speaker or an expert on this sort of thing. As I mentioned above, ALT2 (and by extension ALT1) do not feel like they'd be interesting to a broad audience, so I have struck them. This will be good to go once the nominator returns and/or the issues with the ALT0 source are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm here, just not very active and not checking very often. [Username Needed] 17:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Probably needs a second opinion on the source in question, it is the only remaining issue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The source is a document hosted on the website https://www.hydroretro.net/, a website about aviation history published by Pierre Pécastaingts, who appears to be private enthusiast. The document does not list its own sources. Gérard Hartmann, who wrote the source document, is a regular contributor to the site. I found M. Hartmann mentioned in one news article, which described him as "spécialiste de l’histoire de l’aviation" (an expert in aviation history) but I cannot find any biography that might explain more about his qualifications. He does have books on this topic published with traditional (that is, not vanity or self) publishers: I found two with Les éditions de l'Officine (one received a nitpicky critical review from an aviation website) and one book published by Jaca Book, a traditional publisher at the University of Milan. Could someone who knows if this passes Wikipedia reliable source requirements please weigh in; I hope this is enough information to decide.
Re the hook fact, "put into production before the design was finalized", the source says: "Le Lorraine 12 D est homologué en janvier 1917 à la puissance de 350 ch. Par la suite, en 1918, ce moteur développe jusqu’à 400 ch, ce qui fait de ce moteur le plus puissant moteur fran?ais de sontemps." (roughly: the Lorraine 12 D was certified/approved in January 1917 as a 350 horsepower engine, and was subsequently expanded to 400 horsepower in 1918, which made it the most powerful French engine of its time.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: One of the paragraphs in the "Design and development" section has no citation. Flibirigit (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • I am adopting this nomination to help move it forward. I will do some housecleaning on the article, and may propose new hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I have struck ALT0 since it is not mentioned in the article. I will propose something else when I am finished housecleaning. Flibirigit (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I will need a day or two to rewrite the body. I have discovered more text that is not supported in the cited sources. Flibirigit (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize that real life is rather busy lately. I will try to get to this by May 31. Flibirigit (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No. I will propose new hooks when I am ready. Flibirigit (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 6[edit]

Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures

  • Comment: I know that I have 7 days to take action for nominating DYK, but since it is my first experince, please do not ignore me.

Created by M1nhm (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

  • @M1nhm: (QPQ not required for new DYK nominators) You must review another nomination to validate your nomination. ~ R.T.G 16:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: This appears to be the nominator's first nomination: per the rules, nominators with less than five DYK credits are exempted from the QPQ requirement. With that said, I am not very sure about either hook: the topic has potential, but each hook has inadequate wording and may need rephrasing, and I'm worried that the article itself may not pass due to possible POV concerns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I was trying for a neutral hook. Maybe I have a line, ALT2: ... that insulting Sunni religious figures was not prohibited by fatwa in Iran until the 21st century? I only didn't review it because I couldn't neutralise the hook... ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds better, but I'd like to hear from the nom first. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: The nominator hasn't edited in almost two weeks and never replied here. What can be done at this point? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:, In fact they haven't edited since a few hours before the first ping to them from this page, except one "mobile" edit to correct a typo. Either I have scared them away from the site or, they do appear to take wikibreaks for a few days up to a couple of weeks. This editor has only edited a relatively few pages for about 1,000 edits, the largest part of which to one draft article and not many talk pages, so they are a hands off editor.
I think the done thing is to post it on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, so I've done that.
I will also suggest slightly less worded, ALT3 "... that insulting Sunni religious figures was prohibited by fatwa in Iran in the 21st century?" ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 15:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will give the nominator one week to reply to the messages here. If there is no response, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. I don't see how we can possibly close this without an actual review, since we have an ALT3 proposed that seems to be free of POV issues, and no need for a nominator response unless and until issues are found in the review that need (and do not get) such a response. Thanks to anyone who gives this a full review. (I've done a very minor edit to ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to give this a full review, but it probably wouldn't hurt to at least raise some immediate comments. For example, the "Reactions" sections probably works better in prose instead of as a list. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg While this was nominated a day late (the article was created on February 6 but not nominated until February 14), we typically allow leniency for newcomers to DYK, so that will not be an issue here. What is an issue is that the article is too short: at 1363 prose characters, it's below the 1500 minimum required at DYK. (Narutolovehinata5's suggestion to turn the Reactions lists into prose is one way to solve this problem.) It is really a shame that such a basic check was not made sooner. Another significant issue, I think, is that the Reactions are uniformly positive to the Fatwa. This strikes me as a potential neutrality issue—were there no countries or significant religious figures that objected? Finally, I don't understand why there are so many sources cited in some places: for example, the text of Khamenei's statement only needs a single reliable source, not four separate sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator hasn't edited in almost a month, hasn't edited the article since February, and never responded to reviewer concerns. Marking for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've converted the Reactions list into prose, making the article long enough for DYK. Now the main problem is that the section is too positive. Are there any responses to this fatwa by secular/irreligious critics? Surely a legal opinion condemning criticism of religious figures would be a trespass on the freedom of speech? feminist (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I had mentioned my concerns about the neutrality of the article above. I have just added a neutrality template to the article, which will need to be addressed before the nomination can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I won't be that surprised if it turns out there is indeed little criticism of this topic from secular (or at least non-Muslim) critics. It may likely be considered too far from home for non-Muslim audiences, resulting in little coverage. It's the same reason why Christian conservative organizations in the US tend to get outraged easier by an American celebrity than someone from Europe who is decidedly more socially liberal. I've tried Google searching for opinion pieces regarding this fatwa but most results I get that aren't overtly religious seem to concern an unrelated fatwa involving Salman Rushdie. The cited Reuters article suggests that the support this fatwa enjoyed among the Muslim world is unusually broad. This means we are unlikely to find negative coverage from non-progressive Muslims. If the reactions are primarily positive, it's not necessarily inappropriate for this article to cover primarily positive reactions. feminist (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well if that were the case, we'd probably need a source to confirm that reactions were primarily positive, otherwise the neutrality issue still won't be resolved. And in any case, some negative comments might still be needed while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the Reuters source: The fatwa issued on Sept. 30 was not unusual in itself but the fact that Saudi Shi’ites publicly requested Khamenei’s opinion and that it has been so widely welcomed by Sunnis and Shi’ites suggests Iran is winning the regional clout it craves. and Khamenei’s intervention won widespread praise. feminist (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • feminist, even the Reuters article isn't universally positive, as witness the final four paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess we should keep looking then, if that's the case. feminist (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg As the article length issue is now addressed, I will give this nomination one more week. @M1nhm: Please respond to the comments left above and leave us a notice if you will be able to fix the issues, so that this can continue. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset:I am sorry for the delay, I didn't access to the net for logging on the wiki. I will do my best trying to solve problems of the article such as length or adding opposite views. For the reason, I ask you to give me time from three days up to one week. M1nhm (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist:Thanks for your precise comment. I added some opposite opinions in the article M1nhm (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:I do not agree with ALT 2. What is the POV problem with hooks that I suggested? Which words do violate POV exactly? M1nhm (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue was that initially, there were no negative reactions mentioned at all in the article, and it wasn't initially clear if this was simply due to them not being included or if it was because reactions were generally negative in the first place. Secondly, as for ALT0 and ALT1, not only do they have severe grammatical problems, but they are not well-written enough to count as "hooky". I took a look at the article right now, and while some of the concerns have been addressed, the text and POV issues still persist, and it would take some more work for this to be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg @M1nhm: I will give you one more week to address the remaining article issues. Failure to do so will result in the nomination being closed as unsuccessful. If you are having difficulty understanding exactly what needs to be done, you are free to ask me or any of the other commenters here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am going to suggest new hooks what is your idea about them?
  • ALT4:... that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures was described as winning "widespread praise"? Source:reuters
  • ALT5:... that Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa against insulting revered Sunni figures? Source:reuters M1nhm (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Of the two, ALT5 is probably the best option and probably the most neutral, but in any case either option would need to be copyedited for grammar. Due to the sensitivity of the topic and my reluctance to review such topics, I am deferring giving this a full review and letting any of the previous commentators give their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I added some negative reactions in the article, In other hands, the article was copy edited but you think that article is suffering from POV issue yet. can I ask you to show me sentences that have POV issues? M1nhm (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
As you asked to edit ALT 4 and ALT5:

The grammar remains a bit iffy, I suggest you put this up at WP:GOCE/R to address the issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I nominated the article to copy edit. M1nhm (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The article was copy edited before and was approved in this page, so new review for copy edit is not necessary.M1nhm (talk)
It needed a new one because of the expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: In order to save time I did some copy edit in the article. Is it ok right now? M1nhm (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really, some of the grammar still feels at best informal. Some words such as "Secretary General" are also capitalized improperly, and there are contractions (such as "can't") that we try to avoid whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 9[edit]

Dolo hospital airstrike

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 10:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out, no apparent copyvios. Chetsford, QPQ needed. Also, please clip the newspapers.com articles so that those without subscriptions can also access the content. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Usernameunique - thanks much, I've finished the QPQ now. Chetsford (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, could you also clip the newspapers.com articles so that others can read them? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Note that your clipping request above is not part of the DYK rules, and also that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is advised to "not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". North America1000 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, they are not being rejected, nor are they "difficult or costly to access". Rather, newspapers.com provides a simple way of letting other people access them: clipping. Moreover, since at least one of the articles supports the hook fact, I think it is reasonable to ask Chetsford to clip the articles in question. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, I've been a bit behind and haven't had a chance to get around to clipping all the articles. I'm not 100% sure I know how to do it, but I'll figure it out and get to it ASAP. Chetsford (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been over a month without a response or edit from Chetsford. There needs to be progress on this soon if the nomination is to proceed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably won't be able to get to this in a timely manner. If clipping is a prerequisite to promotion I may have to withdraw this nomination. Apologies, I will make a note of this for future nominations. Chetsford (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look more closely at this, I wonder why clipping is being required at all—I can't recall ever seeing such a case. Usernameunique, the AGF tick was invented for just this reason, that we assume good faith that the sources are as claimed, even if they are behind a firewall or not on line at all. Clipping might be required at FAC, but at DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, neither FAC nor GA nor DYK requires clipping. WBGconverse 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg--Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it, for there is considerable doubt over the precise death tally. Also, the statement is not hooky, at all. Airstrikes can kill lots more than 30 and it's entirely non-surprising.
    The way to elicit attention of the reader is to emphasize upon the extraordinary fact that Italy was bombing a hospital; something which is now deemed as a war-crime. So, a new hook, please:-) WBGconverse 13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem changing the hook, but on what basis is it "blatantly wrong"? Three sources report death totals of 22, 28, and 30. The hook establishes that between zero and 30 people were killed. If you have better sources and could add them to the article, that would be appreciated. "Something which is now deemed as a war-crime" - under customary international law I'm certain attacking a hospital was a war crime in 1935 as well, and it was most certainly a codified war crime under the convention of 1864. A hook which suggested otherwise would be blatantly wrong, I'm sure. Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong. As many as means different things to different readers across different contexts and it does not always equate to maximum.
AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. Also, I was not asking for any insertion about war crime bit, either and I mentioned the particular locus as to locating a more interesting angle (violation of war-conventions) to write a hook. Something of the form:-
ALT1 ... that Italy chose to assault a Red Cross Hospital during the Dolo hospital airstrike in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?
WBGconverse 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
... when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong ... No.
...AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. As I said, the inviolability and neutrality of hospitals was codified in the convention of 1864. Chetsford (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's wrong. 22 is not as many as 30. WBGconverse 17:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"Yep, that's wrong." As I, and others, have counseled you: no, it isn't. If you require further clarification or would like to debate and/or promote any alternate theories of predicate logic, I suggest you take this to a Talk page or to DYK discussion as there's probably no point in continuing it here since we've moved to a new hook. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have no idea why Winged Blades of Godric gave this an AGF tick when saying "Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it", because that tick means the nomination has passed, which is clearly not the case. The slash icon is the best given the hook strike. Also, Chetsford is correct: saying "as many as 30 people were killed" when the reports include the number 30 is not wrong at all, since "as many as" gives an upper limit. It is, however, not a good idea to give the high number of a range of reports in a hook, because it gives emphasis to a number that may well be incorrect. (I don't know the comparative reliability of the sources and their source material.) While the article gives the number dead in the lead as 22 to 30, if there were 2 Swedes and between 18 and 28 Ethiopians killed, shouldn't that range be 20 to 30? For ALT1, I'm wondering why "Italy chose to assault" rather than "the Italian Air Force chose to bomb" (when I see "assault", I imagine a ground assault), and would suggest a piped link rather than the direct one to the article: "a Red Cross hospital in Dolo during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?" (Still not happy with the flow of "chose to", but couldn't find any better wording that was as clear that this the hospital was picked for bombing, not struck as the result of targeting gone awry.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not thrilled by the use of "chose" simply because it's an unusual, albeit not necessarily incorrect, word to use in reference to a corporate body. I'd suggest -
We can't name Tito Minnetti by name since Italy never attributed their retaliation specifically to him, only to an unnamed Italian aviator (the article, itself, is careful to only mention that Minnetti was lost at Dolo right before the attack but doesn't make a direct connection). I think this is hooky, though, as the casual observer will wonder what the circumstances of the execution were that caused a Swedish installation to come under attack. And, indeed, since the role of Sweden in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is not widely known, it will be unlikely anyone will realize this occurred in Ethiopia at all until they click. It also maintains a NPOV by acknowledging both of the war crimes that occurred on the part of the two separate parties to the conflict. Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is damn good. WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BMS:-The article was solidly crafted with due sourcing and the tick for that. That, I've struck the hook, there did not lie any possibility of mistaken promotion. WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A tick indicates a nom is ready for promotion. You can't strike the hook and then tick the nom. We can't promote blank space to the main page. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
We can't promote blank space to the main page--I have my assurances that not all are fuckwits. WBGconverse 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to formally approve ALT2 and the rest of the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Hook does not give enough context to the event. Based on ALT2, a reader may make the assumption, that Sweden may have had a part in the execution of an Italian pilot. A new hook is requested.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg After the review, I see neutrality issues were resolved by including the response of Euthopia regarding the event which is the subject of the article. This was not included in the 9 February 2019 version. The hook could be more accurate. Nominator is a heavy contributor to DYK with 91 credits at the time of this review; I will assume good faith that when the nominator said that QPQ was done on 10 February, that it was. Please provide more possible hooks, so that this nomination may proceed. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svgThe above new hook is satisfactory. Let's open this up to a new reviewer, to see if this new hook is interesting to that new reviewer.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I know you must be exhausted with this process. Forgive me but the hook needs to mention the location. As written, the most reasonable assumption from reading the hook is that the hospital is located in Sweden. I have quietly been watching this nomination languish for months and I happy to pass the hook if the location is mentioned. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 26[edit]

1 the Road

  • ... that artificial intelligences have have begun to write novels? Source: "On March 25, 2017, a black Cadillac with a white-domed surveillance camera attached to its trunk departed Brooklyn for New Orleans. An old GPS unit was fastened atop the roof. Inside, a microphone dangled from the ceiling. Wires from all three devices fed into Ross Goodwin’s Razer Blade laptop, itself hooked up to a humble receipt printer. This, Goodwin hoped, was the apparatus that was going to produce the next American road-trip novel." (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that at nine seventeen in the morning, the house was heavy? Source: It is a partial quote of the AIs first words "The novel begins suitably enough, quoting the time: “It was nine seventeen in the morning, and the house was heavy.”" (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 06:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy, and the hook meets the hook criteria. Good to go. In my personal opinion, however (@RTG: this is more food for thought if anything) that the premise of the article is interesting enough as it is (the first book to be written by AI!) that it doesn't really need a super quirky hook like ALT1 to capture the reader's attention, and the primary hook might be a tad confusing as readers may think that it's an article talking about AIs writing novels in general when it's instead about a specific novel. I personally think something super simple like ALT2: ... that 1 the Road is marketed as the first novel to be written by an artificial intelligence? would work best, but again, that's up to you Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes the primary is clunky. ~ R.T.G 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 is the best hook listed here. It is very catchy, properly cited and mentioned in the article. Accepting hook, with the rest of the review as per User:Satellizer above.Flibirigit (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't find an inline cite for the ALT2 hook fact. I also don't think the article is start-class yet. It has a largely uncited lead section and one paragraph of authorship, also cited to a single source. Aren't there any production details or publishing history? Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry I musn't have pressed send. In fact the first article is called "The First Novel Written by AI Is Here—and It’s as Weird as You’d Expect It to Be" and it goes on to say, "1 The Road is currently marketed as the first novel written by AI." A quote from the AI creator Goodwin. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @RTG: OK, I moved the cite up to the first sentence in the lead. But the article still doesn't seem start-class. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I must put it that this article requires the reader to scroll to finish reading. The subject is a book which makes no sense, is significant only in regard of its author, and has captured a lack of popularity which is both amazing and unsurprising at the same time. If 1 the Road was published in 2000, or even 2010, you could be telling us there was too much useless information in the article, but this is the future and the future is way more crap than advertised.
  • Sorry for the delays. I swear my ping system sometimes flashes up a ping then makes it disappear before I can read it. I must request somewhere that no notification ever be auto-deleted. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been another month without any further needed action from RTG. Allowing another seven days for action, but after that, this may well be marked for closure as abandoned by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am the last one to post here. You say, "without any further needed action from RTG" yet in the next sentence that I have abandoned the nomination under a deadline for "action". The reviewer is asking for more than DYK requires. The reviewer is claiming they simply can't believe the topic is so short. I'm agreeing with them. They are the ones who have left it here. If they just reviewed it under the DYK rules, it would have been done long ago because it met that on the first day. It was written specifically with DYK in mind. "This will make a good DYK," I was thinking. The purpose of DYK as I recall was to attract editors to new content, not present them with a finished article. The idea was to have the article to a certain standard, not the ultimate standard. I've gone over it several times. I don't want to lose any love for the topic. I repeat, I have responded here. It is not my action you are waiting for. The article meets the character limit. It meets all of the DYK rules. The reviewer is asking for more. Please tell them not to, thanks. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • RTG, as far as I could tell, Yoninah was saying that the article, while technically meeting the 1500-character length criterion, did not meet "a certain standard"—it wasn't sufficiently robust (hence the comment about not being start-class, which is the next level of quality above a stub). I believe she was referring to this rule: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. I notice that another editor has expanded the article from 1728 to 1996 prose characters; perhaps Yoninah can take another look to see whether her concerns have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I rewrote the lead and added more information from the sources, as well as reorganized the page so it reads like a Wikipedia article. I removed the part about it being 60 million words long, which is a misquote from the source. The article is now start-class. But ALT2 is not going to work. An article about it in The Atlantic states: "They’re collected in 1 the Road, a book Goodwin’s publisher, Jean Bo?te éditions, is marketing as “the first novel written by a machine.” (Though, for the record, Goodwin says he disagrees it should bear that distinction—“That might be The Policeman’s Beard Is Half Constructed by a program from the ’80s,” he tells me.)" Perhaps it's best to say just that the novel was written by artificial intelligence, period. Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am compelled to disagree with Yoninah by pointing out they haven't added any substantial amount of information and have merely copy edited and detailed the information already there. It seems a positive contribution. There is no "misquote". It says sixty million words and gives the megabyte size of those words before later in the article giving a description of another collection of twenty million words, and the megabyte size of that (twenty million words from which the AI draws words and phrases for its prose), so it is easy to draw the comparison. Yoninahs suggestion feels like if one publication disputes another, to delete the whole thing? It doesn't seem to match the modus operandi of the site. You report the dispute, even if it is your own words saying simply, sources disagree about one point on this subject, rather than pretend there is no possible reliable source of information. The curses of an overabundance of information is not in our rationale? ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @RTG: Well, we are constantly running into problems with eagle-eyed editors who will find someone or something else that was the "first".
  • If you could supply a source that says the novel is 60 million words long, we can use it in the hook, like:
  • ALT2: ... that an artificial intelligence has written a 60-million-word novel? Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The 60 million words is a misquote. The sixty million words is a reference to the pool the AI drew from. ALT2 is wrong to my mistake. The AI drew from several 20 million word lists of literature totalling 60 million words. Sorry about that... ~ R.T.G 07:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 8[edit]

British Rail Class 458

A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.
A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.

Improved to Good Article status by Pkbwcgs (talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg QPQ not needed. Promoted to GA on March 8. Hook is interesting. Article is NPOV with no obvious copyvio. Image is currently CC licensed. (I took the liberty of adding (pictured) to ALT-1.) The hook is inline cited using the term "reconfigured" instead of "converted" which I think is fine. The source used to cite that is offline (Modern Railways), however, meets what I would consider a reasonable definition of RS. All looks good. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. I was wondering if it's obvious that the hook is referring to British Rail Class cars (it's not obvious to me). I also wonder if anyone cares. This is a GA; could you suggest a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: How about ALT3 which replaces "Class 460" with "trains" with a link to the article Class 460. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: I have a feeling you're so familiar with the subject that you can't see it like an outsider. I don't live in England. I have never taken a train. I'm afraid that ALT3 isn't even remotely interesting to me. What would make it interesting is adding another fact that I could relate to, like the cars were too squishy, or cars were eliminated in the process of renovation, or...? Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: How about ALT4? Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: Better, thanks! Please add an inline cite after that sentence. Chetsford could you review ALT4 please? Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: This source. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: thank you. I meant you should add a cite to the article after this sentence: Six of the eight Class 460 trains lost three carriages in the process, leaving them as 5-car trains that were also reconfigured as class 458/5 trains. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: That is the best source I can find to give the general idea that the eight-car Class 460s were converted to six five-car Class 458. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. So are you going to add the citation to the article?
    Meanwhile, I see someone else has deleted the part about losing 3 carriages. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: I reverted the edit as the previous version was more detailed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. Please add the inline cite to the sentence about losing three carriages. Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Yoninah: I can't find a citation that says that the Class 460s have lost three carriages. The best I could give was the website I have stated above. I may need help from another user who has expertise in British railways. Maybe User:Redrose64 could help. I have done a detailed search and the citation from railnews was the best I could find. Perhaps this citation could be better but it doesn't make a specific mention of the Class 460s losing carriages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Pkbwcgs: OK. So from a DYK point of view, we need another hook. From a GA point of view, that sentence does need to be sourced, or deleted. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    From what I understand, it goes something like this. Class 458 was originally 30 x 4-car units, total 120 cars; class 460 was originally 8 x 8-car units, total 64 cars; for a grand total of 184 cars. Of the 8-car units, six have been reduced to 5-car units and redesignated class 458, releasing (6 x (8-5)) = 18 cars; the other two 8-car units were disbanded, releasing 16 cars of which four have been stripped for spares and scrapped. This means that the cars released from class 460 units totalled (18 + 16 - 4) = 30 cars, exactly the number required to strengthen all of the 4-car Class 458 units to 5-car. The final tally is 36 x 5-car units, total 180 cars. So in terms of factual accuracy, ALT4 should have the word "each" inserted before the word "lost". But I don't have a source explicitly stating that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    The more I look at this, the more shaky ALT4 becomes. Having now analysed the individual car numbers allocated to the units before and after conversion (using various editions of the Platform 5 "British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock"), here is the breakdown:
    Former units 460001 and 460002 were entirely split up, each car ending up in a different unit, with six cars from each (12 in all) going to former 4-car units, three cars being redistributed among the other former Class 460 units, and one car scrapped
    Former units 460003 to 460008 were partially split up, with three cars from each unit (18 in all) going to former 4-car units, but the remaining five cars of each were not kept together:
    • 458531 includes two cars from 460008 and one each from 460002, 460003 and 460006
    • 458532 includes three cars from 460007 and one each from 460004 and 460005
    • 458533 includes three cars from 460003 and one each from 460006 and 460007
    • 458534 includes four cars from 460004 and one from 460008
    • 458535 includes four cars from 460005 and one from 460001
    • 458536 includes three cars from 460006 and one each from 460002 and 460008
    The four scrapped cars were one each from 460001, 460003, 460007 and 460008.
    So I find that there isn't a single instance of a class 458 unit containing five cars from the same class 460 unit, which is what we would expect if three cars had been removed from six of the 8-car units. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pkbwcgs, Chetsford, Yoninah, and Redrose64: This has been stuck for over a month. Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    I added a new hook above. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I find it hard to find ALT5 in the article. All I see is a chart with the (unsourced) number 6 as to the number of trains. I also think that all the life has gone out of the hook. This is a GA; could you suggest something else that is interesting and has an inline cite? Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reading the hooks again, I have to say that none of them are really interesting to a broad audience: at best maybe they only appeal to train fans. I agree with what Yoninah mentioned above: can something better be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree that the Gatwick Express-linked hooks are quite specialised and dry, too much so really, but I think there is a wealth of potentially interesting hooks in the article - I've suggested some below. Spokoyni (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT6:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were awarded a Golden Spanner?
  • ALT7:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km)?
  • ALT8:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km), but by 2012 managed 106,049 miles (170,669 km) between failures?
  • ALT9:... that the Class 458s (pictured) were the first new fleet of trains to be delivered following the privatisation of British Rail?
  • ALT10:... that six years after first entering service, the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all?
  • ALT11:... that in 2004 the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all, but by 2012 they were the most reliable fleet in Britain?
Symbol question.svg Of the new hooks, I think ALT10 and ALT11 are the best, with a slight preference for ALT11 as it shows both the reliability and unreliability. I don't have access to the sources used for them so I am assuming good faith. This is almost ready to go: my only concern is that there's no footnote in the "Fleet details" section. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT11 and I think that this should be used as the source for the hook. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pkbwcgs: Can you please cite the "Fleet details" sections so that this can be approved? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have cited the "Fleet details" section. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Almost good to go: however only one of the cells has a footnote, when both probably need it (I can't seem to verify one cell in the source given, the one about TSOL). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pkbwcgs: Ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 12[edit]

Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC), co-nom by DBigXray? 12:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC) .

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, since the nomination is continuing rather than being withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed; it's been over two weeks with no review posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a poorly written article on one of the most volatile areas in the encyclopedia. I remain inclined to work on this article and get rid of the UNDUE stuff. WBGconverse 13:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Historical significance

  • ...that historical significance is subjective and open to challenge? Source: "But historical significance is often a subjective decision, something that makes it contestable (open to challenge)." (and [8] the source)
    • ALT1: ...that historical significance defines history books, street names, museum displays, pictures on stamps, bank notes, and television shows? Source: " Ideas about historical significance help to shape how the past is remembered and represented and influence who gets remembered and who gets forgotten and who and what gets included in history books, commemorated on bank notes, in the names of streets and squares, in museum displays, in television programmes, and so on" (and [9] the source)

Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Leaving aside a review of the article itself, I've corrected some grammar issues with the hooks; struck ALT0 as unsupported by the source ("often" ≠ always in all cases) which itself isn't remotely a qualified WP:RS for a point of that magnitude, however WP:BLUEy; and struck ALT1 as unsupported/ungrammatical/tautological. It isn't "defining" "pictures on stamps" or "museum displays" and, to the extent historical significance shapes others' inclusion in that laundry list, such reshaping is the very essence of the concept of historical significance. The hook essentially says "historical significance is historical significance", which fails the "be interesting" criterion for DYK. — LlywelynII 19:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 seems bland but unobjectionable. ALT4 is a quote quoted by your source; Febvre's original work should be found and cited and it's just his opinion, not a fact. ALT5 isn't cited in the article. — LlywelynII 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • To check through the rest of the list, though, the article is timely but currently consists of an overlong intro from one source (WP:LEADCITE; WP:ONESOURCE) and three lists without commentary (MOS:LEADREL; WP:LISTDD); all three lists are theoretical and sourced to historians unimportant enough that they lack existing biography articles (WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE) rather than any discussion about the actual criteria used by major past or present historians; it's barely long enough (1520ish elig. chars.) but full of grammatical mistakes and needs a rebuild (e.g., the WP:LEADSENTENCE vaguely describes the topic instead of defining it) that will change that number; removing the current deadweight would put it under the requirement; Earwig finds no major copyvio, but the lists need an overhaul to make more sense even if they're found to be notable; QPQ done.

    At minimum, ? the lead sentence needs to define the topic; ? the lead section needs to be an overview of the body of the article, not the body of the article itself; as such, ? the running text in the body of the article needs to be (at minimum) 2–3 times longer than the text in the lead; ? the citations in the lead need to be moved to the body; ? the lists that are currently being used should have some indication as to who these people are and why anyone should care about their opinions on historical significance; ? the lists that are currently being used should be rephrased to explain exactly what each point means and how it is different from the other points, ideally with clear examples.

    I've often said that this is DYK, not GA, and that's completely true (a good article would include discussions of changing historiography over time discussing major international historians/schools from Sima Qian to hagiographers to Gibbon to the Marxists) but there are some minimum standards that aren't being met here that really should be. — LlywelynII 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: Thanks Llywelyn, I have added a separate short lead and I understand what you are saying about referencing the lists against each other, but these were simply the lists that seem to be used a lot in a relatively superficial search and read up on the topic. I will look into validating the lists a little better but it will be down to online availability. ~ R.T.G 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you see what I'm saying, then you understand that online availability doesn't actually make these lists NOTABLE or non-FRINGE. There has to be some context that other people actually pay attention to these particular writers or that their ideas represent widespread consensus in the field, established practice among actually noteworthy historians, etc.

If that's really impossible to manage, then we're better off moving this to a sandbox for future work and redirecting to the good general treatment at Historiography or sth. — LlywelynII 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I have expanded the article a little. Historians notoriously do not get the kind of recognition you seem to be trying to demand. I assure you, there is more than copy and paste going on here even if there is no FA yet, so I invite you to the articles talkpage to discuss further relevance of the lists.
I invite you to read historiography for that context, as I have done. This subject is widely published and is not covered on Wikipedia. I am sorry that you cannot bear start class articles, but that's where articles start. If you are offended by this article or believe it misrepresents sources, is based on unreliable sources or is unbalanced by fringe views, discuss on the talkpage or request deletion. DYK is asking for stub-class articles recently. Well, here's one both of us would have expected to be covered already. I've put it on the history project. Let's get it through the DYK and see if an article comes of it, ~ R.T.G 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If you'd like to help, find me a connection that says Lis Cercadillo, Ministry of Education (ESP), various important university postings, is the same author. If she is not, why can I not find the Spanish Lis, referred to all over the place in English, who is? ~ R.T.G 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@LlywelynII:, I invite you now to review the article again and remember, it is a start, and as such is written to encourage participation and interest, not instil authority, so I encourage you to help me improve the rationale of the lists as an important part of the subject rather than simply demand credentials. ~ R.T.G 14:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested; previous reviewer has not been active as is unlikely to return. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 14[edit]

Orvar Swenson

Created by 97198 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Reviewing. New enough, copyvio ok. Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi @97198:. Did he do it solely or with Alexander Bill? All else ok.Whispyhistory (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Whispyhistory: From the sources it doesn't seem 100% clear. Bill and Swenson certainly developed and reported on the technique together, but whether Bill was in the operating theatre is unclear. That the surgery is known as the "Swenson pull-through" is maybe an indication. In any case, I don't think the hook is inaccurate – whether or not Bill was directly involved, Swenson certainly would have had assistance. 97198 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @97198 and Whispyhistory: This has been stuck since March; I'd suggest revising the hook or proposing a new hook if the lack of clarity on Swenson's role is what's preventing this from moving forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Narutolovehinata5:. This should all be clear in the article. I will leave to @97198:, otherwise I can research the topic in the summer. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory: The nominator hasn't edited in over a month. Can this still move forward? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:...let me see if I can improve the article (not claiming to be an expert fixer). The article is wrong as it stands. I'll ping back soon, but then someone else will need to review. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Whispyhistory, have you made all the necessary fixes to the article yet? I see that you made a number of edits over the next 48 hours or so, but never replied here, so I'm guessing that there's more to do, but if not, it would be nice to get this nomination moving again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset:...thanks..not forgotten, just other things on mind but after tomorrow, I'll check it over. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Olivia Jade Giannulli

  • ALT1 ... that there has been a delay in the processing of the trademark for Olivia Jade due to "poor punctuation" on the application? [12] [13]
  • Reviewed: forthcoming / needed

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size (bare minimum but passes), copyvio check, neutrality, hooks, pass. QPQ review needed. But I also have one more concern that would be best answered by a second reviewer. The article is borderline with regards to WP:BLP - most of the content is tabloid-level criticism of the subject. I am unsure if it is due weight to discuss such incidents including the one the hook is citing. And frankly, removing even one sentence from this article could make it not eligible as it will be too short. Not sure if we want this type of content for the front page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article is currently at AfD; therefore no decision on DYK can be made until and unless it is kept. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Outsider comment; courtesy ping to all parties as AFD is closed as keep and article has been further expanded. Review can be continued although the problem of recentism would need to be addressed per tag. Daniel Case, Piotrus, Chetsford. :) Adog (Talk?Cont) 15:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Since the article passed AfD (which I have not been aware of), this suggests it is at least notable. It also has been expanded. As for the tag about 'being slanted towards recent events', I am not sure it is justified - is there any coverage of her that's not about 'recent events'? I am inclined to change my vote to GTG unless counter-arguments are presented (please ping me if anyone wants to address me). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of notability or recentism issues, the hook seems to be a BLP case and personally I don't feel comfortable using it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Would you be able to propose an alternate hook? I'm concerned that the current one falls afoul of BLP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
Sure, Narutolovehinata5. Alt proposed, above. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Piotrus: Thoughts on the new hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ugh. Possible BLP issues... but I guess we can leave the choice of the hook to the closing admin, both are ok-ish, if we squint long enough... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Probably needs a new reviewer, this hasn't been touched in over a month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to try to help out with hooks. Neither of the proposed hooks makes sense to people who don't know who she is. And the rest of the article has so many BLP issues that I'm not sure where to draw a hook from. Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - ALT 2 proposed, below. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Chetsford: why is that hooky? I really don't know who she is. Yoninah (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Understood - ALT 3 proposed, below. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 15[edit]

Al-Nadirah

  • ... that the medieval Perso-Arabic legend of al-Nadirah was the source of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Princess and the Pea"? Source: "The widespread popular legend about the Hatrene princess Na?ira and her betrayal of the city for love is still lives on in the modern fairy tale (by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen) “the princess and the pea”" [14]
  • Reviewed: coming soon

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Thank you. The hook is excellent. The Princess and the Pea is one of my favourite tales and no doubt this information will be of interest to many. QPQ to do, copyvio okay, new enough, sourced and cited. One bare url needs a fix. Character count too low. Can you expand a bit more, maybe add the information of why it linked with the fairy tale? Another source [15]. Ping me when done. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Whispyhistory, I get the character count of the prose at around 2,000, shouldn't that be enough? I think the hook needs to be reworded though: neither its source, nor the first relevant thing I could see in a quick search [16] suggests that the legend was the actual source of the fairy tale. All that is stated is that they share a theme, stopping short of implying a causal connection (which is likely but not certain and it would be otherwise quite difficult to establish). – Uanfala (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg ALT1 works with "one of the sources". The article still has a bare url needing a fix. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 17[edit]

Felipe Reinoso

Created/expanded by Vycl1994 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The lead is too short. In the original hook "state legislature" must be replaced by "state legislature of US". RRD (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The article lede now mentions Reinoso's tenure on the Connecticut House, and his election to the Peruvian legislature. ALT3 above specifies U. S. state legislature in addition to the wikilink state legislature (United States) that was already present. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vycl1994: The lead claims that he was born in circa 1950. However, there is no source for it in the article. I have also added a when tag to the article. The article needs a little copyedit also. RRD (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: The biographical sketch attached to Reinoso's interview with Reyes states Keating, Pazniokas, and Lender (2008) states . Both references are linked to the sentence "Reinoso and his family immigrated to the United States in 1969, settling in Bridgeport, Connecticut." at the moment. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 18[edit]

Chowkidar Chor Hai

  • ... that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ministers prefixed the name 'chowkidar' (watchmen) to their social media profiles in response to election slogan Chowkidar Chor Hai? Source: "In recent days, leaders and supporters of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have launched a coordinated effort to popularize his watchman campaign, with many changing their social media names to add the prefix ‘chowkidar’" Economic Times, Telegraph

Created by DBigXray (talk). Self-nominated at 07:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I've modified the hook slightly to include "Narendra Modi" in it. The article is new enough and long enough, and QPQ is present. However, the article has some slight grammatical issues and most pressingly it is up for AfD. I'd like to reevaluate pending the result of the AfD. Raymie (t ? c) 17:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "his ministers" seems quite strangely put. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming his government ministers? Not exactly a big leap of faith in a parliamentary democracy... Raymie (t ? c) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article was kept at AFD, but the 2019 Indian general elections are currently ongoing, so in light of the rule at WP:DYKHOOK for avoiding articles featuring election candidates up to 30 days before the election, it would seem that the promotion at least will have to wait until they have concluded. – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's also an RM now on this page, as a note, requesting a move to Main Bhi Chowkidar. Raymie (t ? c) 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Further update: having survived the RM, this page is now a candidate to be merged. Can't say I've seen an AfD, an RM and a proposed merger on the same article before? Raymie (t ? c) 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The article that is the proposed merge target is also under a merge proposal, for merging into yet another, higher-level article. That's something I can't say I've seen before. – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That proposal was archived with three "Oppose" votes, so that tag can be removed. Good catch. Raymie (t ? c) 00:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There have been four comments over a month and a half of the merger proposal being up for discussion, and three of them are in support. I believe the merger would mean the end of this DYK nomination, correct? Raymie (t ? c) 22:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Raymie this article belongs to WikiProject Indian politics. As I noted on the talk page as well, this article is an eyesore for supporters of a particular political party.who are doing everything they can to get rid of this article. I would like to remind you that mergers here are based on consensus and WP:NOTAVOTE count. There is no consensus to merge as of now. Just as there  was no consensus to rename and a strong consensus to NOT DELETE the article. DBigXray? 10:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Kamchatka meteor

Timelapse of the Kamchatka meteor's smoke trail by the JMA's Himawari 8
Timelapse of the Kamchatka meteor's smoke trail by the JMA's Himawari 8

Created by Exoplanetaryscience (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Exoplanetaryscience: New article, long enough, and within policy - although the references could do with improving. My main concern is with the hook. ALT1 seems a bit disparaging, so I prefer the first one. However, the diameter of the meteor seems to be 12 +- 2, not exactly 12 - it might be better just to say the name of it. Also, I don't understand where the 30 years number came from - it's smaller than the 2013 and 1908 ones, so shouldn't this be "the last 6 years"? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice second largest in 30 years- a rather conservative estimate by the BBC source I gave first since we're only confident that similarly sized asteroids have only hit once in the last 30 years (the chelaybinsk event as you said) It wouldn't be supported by the source given, but I could say it was the third largest impact on Earth since 1900. I also chose to state the size of it over the name as I couldn't seem to fit both in without seeming overly verbose, or just the name without making the size of it seem rather meaningless. I might even say putting down the size range and risk getting verbose is better than not giving it at all. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Exoplanetaryscience: Sorry for the delay, I hadn't spotted your reply here. "third largest observed since 1900" might be easier to understand than "second largest in 30 years", since the latter presumably depends on an observational technique having changed 30 years ago (looking at the source for the BBC article at [20]). Perhaps "10-metre class asteroid" might be a way to avoid giving uncertainties on the diameter while not being overly precise. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: I prefer the "third largest observed since 1900" with the keyword being observed. Given that "Events as large as this are statistically estimated to occur once every 20-40 years on average" it seems difficulty to justify that we know that it is the "third largest impact on Earth since 1900." --mikeu talk 21:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Sorry for the delay with re-reviewing this. I think it's now good to go with the revised version of the first hook. I forgot to check for the QPQ earlier, but it isn't needed as it's your second DYK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook has too many numbers in it. Could you pare it down? Here's a suggestion:
  • ALT0a: ... that in 2018, the third-largest asteroid observed to impact Earth since 1900 fell over the Bering Sea near the Kamchatka Peninsula?
  • Also, why are you calling it an asteroid when the page name is meteor? Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Exoplanetaryscience and Mu301. On 'asteroid', that's what it was before it fell into Earth's atmosphere (see Asteroid#Terminology), so that makes sense in the context: an asteroid fell and became a meteor. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Right, a meteor is the visible passage of an asteroid (or other object) thourgh the atmosphere. Asteroid is the "thing" and meteor is the impact "event". --mikeu talk 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: God, I'm horrible at being timely recently. Anyway, I think it would be good to include the size because otherwise you've just got "an unusually large asteroid" and nobody knows how big it is- is a golf ball particularly large for such an object? Perhaps an entire mountain? There's no good way to give reference save just giving a size. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: see the reply from the nominator above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
To explain "how big it is" I have a slight preference for TNT equivalent force as in ALT1. The primary notability of the event is that it released a great amount of energy when it detonated in the atmosphere.[21] A small mass moving fast or a large mass moving slow could have the same impact.[22] But, diameter is ok imo. --mikeu talk 13:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Exoplanetaryscience: all I'm saying is that the hook has too many numbers in it. If you want to keep the size of the meteor, then edit the hook so the size doesn't run into the date. Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Alright, here's a couple of proposed modifications, which do you like more? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW the image is really too dark to be discerned at thumbnail size. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Exoplanetaryscience: in case they haven't spotted this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Really sorry about the delay, I've been juggling a lot and have been ab it overwhelmed recently. I don't think I can easily brighten the image up without an unreasonable amount of work- if it won't work as an image then it's best to just remove it. And I like The DYK proposal that Yoninah gives. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 19[edit]

Pema Dhondup

Created by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 21:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is too short, and contains less than 500 bytes of readable prose, which is all in the lead section. Please expand the article to have at least 1,500 bytes of readable prose. List and plot info do not count toward this total. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ynhockey: I've expand the article.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Thanks, the length looks OK now, though I would still recommend expanding the article further. In any case, the article requires copyediting for grammar and style; I have added a relevant tag, this will likely be addressed by the guild of copyeditors. Feel free to post a request on their page to speed up the process. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ynhockey: I've fixed copyediting for grammar and style. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: It seems that the article is still not well-written, and contains many English language mistakes. I see that you have requested a review at GOCE though, I think we can wait until they help you. I might be able to do so at a later time, but then another reviewer needs to look at the nom. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ynhockey: Article has been copy edited by Guild of Copy Editors___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hook + source look good, article issues have been fixed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not understand the hook. What is a "Nepalese Hollywood film"? The source doesn't call it that, nor does Wikipedia's article about it. Also, the hook seems to be implying that it is the first Nepalese Hollywood film, while the article says it is Dhondup's first Nepalese Hollywood film. I suggest you fix this description in the article and try a different hook. Mentioning his background or studies in Los Angeles might lend themselves to a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: you new hook doesn't make sense. "Between" implies a contrast between two things, not one. I also don't see the hook fact in the article. I fleshed out the biography and note that you are not making full use of your sources in writing the article. While I used his LinkedIn page for biographical details, you can look up these facts online and then credit them to other sources if you wish. Here is another hook idea:
  • ALT2: ... that Pema Dhondup studied filmmaking at the University of Southern California on a Fulbright scholarship so he could use the medium to tell the story of his "lost generation" of Tibetan youth? Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT2 the best but at 193 it's really long and probably could use some trimming. Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Ehud Arye Laniado

  • ... that billionaire diamond trader Ehud Arye Laniado died during penis enlargement surgery? Source: "Billionaire Jewish diamond trader dies during penis enlargement operation. Belgian-Israeli Ehud Arye Laniado, 65, suffers heart attack after unnamed substance injected during cosmetic operation in France" ([23])

Created/expanded by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk), and Snickers2686 (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg The article is new and seems well referenced but does not come close to the minimum length required for DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That's true, it's about 300 characters short. I expect Edwardx will expand it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Surtsicna:, it's now long enough. Please continue review. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Philafrenzy "it's now long enough" - trust that is a reference to the article. Edwardx (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Oh yes, it's BBC quality now. The sources are all fine, the hook is excellent and referenced, but we still need a QPQ review. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Surtsicna. QPQ now done. Edwardx (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg The article now meets the new article, length, and policy criteria. The hook is concise and catchy. QPQ done and a questionable image removed. It's ready now! Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK. Please provide a different hook, optimally about his life or notability. Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that billionaire diamond trader Ehud Arye Laniado was known as "the Argentinian" because he was short and "looked like a tango dancer"?
Thank you, Philafrenzy. For ALT2, I have added "€4.6 billion", along with a supporting ref in the article. Edwardx (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • flag Redflag-Don't proceed with this unless a relevant OTRS ticket gets resolved. Regards, WBGconverse 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Has there been any updates on the OTRS front? It's been weeks since the last activity here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If it was the objection to the fair use image, this has since been removed. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 23[edit]

Methodist Church Ghana

  • ... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates) Have you ever wondered about Methodism in Ghana? Whether you said yes or no, this article is for you.
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Expanded by Saborbie (talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg At the time of nomination, the only change from the past month week was from CommonsDelinker. hinnk (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article was expanded from 1597 prose characters to 2000 prose characters on April 7 (definitely within the past month), a 20% expansion. So the nomination was made 17 days after that expansion, or 10 days late. It would need to be expanded to 7985 prose characters to meet the 5x (500%) expansion requirement, which does not seem to be feasible. In addition, the hook does not meet DYK requirements for formatting or interesting facts. Best of luck for next time; before the next nomination, I suggest that Saborbie read WP:DYK to find out more about how DYK works and what it expected. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry yes, the expansion was within the past month but way outside the window to nominate for DYK. Amended my original comment. hinnk (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The nominator appears to be working on the article in their sandbox, and it looks as if a 5x expansion will be achieved. Marking this to keep the nomination open until the article is updated with new text or the semester is over, whichever occurs first. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Saborbie, thanks for submitting this DYK nomination. if you wish to pursue it—it definitely now qualifies—you will have to provide an interesting hook about the article (the initial one you tried does not qualify; please see the guidance about hooks at WP:DYK). If you aren't interested, then we can just close it. However, we need to hear from you here. Hope you respond soon! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The nominator edited as part of a class course and has not edited since the course ended on May 18. The article probably can still make it to DYK: the main issue is that there are several unsourced paragraphs and even a "citation needed" tag. I've tried coming up with a hook but I'm currently turning up a blank. I'll leave a message at WT:DYK requesting if anyone is willing to adopt this nomination, but if there is no response this will have to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg It has been several days since I made the request on DYK, without receiving a response. Considering the fact that it appears no one right now is willing to adopt the nomination, and that the nominator is no longer editing, it is with regret that this is marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 24[edit]

Herbert Schachtschneider

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article created on 24 March as stated. Contains 2210 characters of prose, is neutral and sourced. Complies with core policies and contains no close paraphrasing [[25]] (I don't see how it could given the sources are in German). Hook contains fewer than 200 characters and is cited in the article. However, the source does say that he recorded Gurre-Lieder mit Inge Borkh und Kieth Engen and although I think that's okay, this may upset the pedantic. Is it interesting? Well, I suppose some people will find it interesting but I would've preferred something about his capture by allied forces. Still, good to go IMHO as soon as the QPQ is done.Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I am not sure why you'r mind that the source mentions his colleague singers, whom I'd mention if only Engen had an aticle, Inge Borkh was one of the most exciting sopranos of her time, and some readers may remember (she died last year). However, the who review comes under the header Kubelik, who is pictured on the cover, and unites three different recordings. Pedantics might rather complain that it's only "Ausschnitte" (excerpts) of Gurre-Lieder, but it's more than one Gurre-Lied, so should be ok. Will review later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I read that as if all the compositions were sung as a trio but in any event, I'm not one of those pedants so as soon as you've done the QPQ, ping me and I'll GTG this nom. Regards Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ykraps, I reviewed now, s. above. Just for teaching: the set combines three recordings of music by different composers, at different times, with different people. Of the three, he sang only in Gurre, but that's a giant piece. No tenor in the Alto-Rhapsody (as one might guess by the title), and a different tenor (who was less praised) for Das klagende Lied. I liked the Gurre because of the praise, and because his other connection to the composer, but "UK premiere" is a bit awkward. Thank you for listening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the extra info. All good to go now.Ykraps (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Honestly, a new hook is probably needed here: it doesn't seem to be intriguing that a singer recorded a song, isn't that their job? Ykraps' suggestion about him being captured during World War II is honestly better than what has been proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with Gurre-Lieder, which - inspite of the harmless title - is a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers. Not a song. - DYK is to promote knowledge that is not yet known. Many performers' articles are a vehicle to make also compositions known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
But does the hook appeal to a broad audience? To be frank, a hook that requires familiarity with a niche topic rarely works out, especially in cases like this. There's probably a better way to present the hook fact and the current one isn't really working out. Being "a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers" does not matter if this is a fact that is only known to opera circles and not the average reader. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I am so tired of this, and today actually sick in bed. Please join the central discussion on WT:DYK#Opera role (where I said that I'd prefer 3 readers actually interested in the topic to 3000 who click and return.) I am here to expand knowledge, - there's a link to Gurre-Lieder for those who don't know. (I see I said that already.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to capitalize "Cologne" in the hook. Jmar67 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been stuck for over a month now. Trying to propose a hook in the hopes that perhaps it can appeal to a broad audience:

There might be a better way to write that, but this is the only thing that comes to mind from the article that might have wide appeal. I also have to note that right now, some paragraphs are unsourced. Courtesy pinging the original reviewer Ykraps. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Please no. Again, imagine it was like about your father, trying to give a hint at what he did the greatest. Sure. Nazi always generates clicks, but he was a creative person, and that should show. I said "tired of this" already --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
To be more precise: I am tired of you not respecting the judgement of others. The hook was approved, and while we know from many examples that you don't support telling readers about great works of art (such as Gurre Lieder), can you please restrict that personal view to nominations you review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can add anything to this discussion. I can only reiterate what I have said above: Personally, I would've preferred a hook about his capture and would've clicked to find out more, whereas I probably wouldn't click if I saw the hook in it's current form. That's not to say others wouldn't find it interesting though. Whether something is interesting or not is subjective and I don't see how anyone can make a judgement like, "...interesting to a broad audience".Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think what is often confused in discussions like this one (and there many many more) is "interesting to a broad audience" and "appealing to a broad audience". What I mean by "interesting" is a characteristic thing about this subject, or two, not a sensational detail which may cause more curiousity but tend to disappoint a reader. In other words, I go for what a reader should find interesting (here: Gurre Lieder, - a reader doesn't have to be familiar with the work, we do have a link) and new and good to know, not so much what is already known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Here's the thing Gerda. Just because a hook has been approved by one editor does not necessarily mean that others can no longer comment on it. You've been on DYK for several years, longer than I've been on DYK, you've surely have seen many instances of this happening. And I never said anything about not wanting others to know about art. On the contrary, I personally enjoy and appreciate multiple forms of art and many genres of music. It's true that "interesting to a broad audience" is a very vague criterion and there should probably be a discussion on that at some point. With that said, the goal of DYK is for readers to click on articles being presented, and I really can't see that happening much if we go with the original hook. Even the original reviewer admitted that this would likely be the case. I know and agree that pageviews aren't everything, but the goal of DYK is to introduce subjects and make people curious about them, not trying to make article subjects too niche for others to understand. Sometimes, it's better to reach a goal by not taking a direct approach: rather than telling them all about these things that they don't understand, try getting their attention with something eye-catching, then lead them to the article, where then they would learn more about these classical music facts. It would probably be more effective in accomplishing your goal of making people learn more about opera. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I have seen some comments on hooks after approval, yes, better never as many as in 2019, and not predominantly by one editor, you. I sometimes approve inviting to find even better alternatives. - I disagree that the goal is to click, which causes sensationalism. Mention Nazi, mention crime, it adds 1k clicks, yes I know. My goal is to "introduce the subject", well said. Thousands were prisoners of war after WWII, - nothing personal about this singer. So, please no, still, unless someone finds a better hook to really introduce the subject, not say something that he has in common with many, - however "eye-catching". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Minor correction: it's not yet 10 years that I joined Wikipedia. My very first article in August 2009 was deleted and then nominated by the one who helped me with the rescue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For a compromise, I think the first English performance of the other Sch?nberg has potential, also perhaps the Berlin Mephistopheles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Nit-picking is bad enough, but what I see on this page goes beyond that. I am more and more astonished by Narutolovehinata5's obstructive and opinionated approach to DYK nominations. The statement "it doesn't seem to be intriguing that a singer recorded a song" and the question "does the hook appeal to a broad audience?" do not seem to be based on DYK rules. Gerda Arendt, I suggest we need to have a discussion about all this on the DYK talk page. If Narutolovehinata5 is allowed to go on like this much longer, many useful contributors such as yourself are just going to walk away. And that would be very bad for the project. Moonraker (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The question "does the hook appeal to a broad audience?" is actually in the rules, though, it's at WP:DYK: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. Many hooks have been pulled due to discussions either at WT:DYK or at WP:ERRORS because consensus determined that the approved hooks did not follow this rule. Now, if there are concerns about the interpretation of that rule then indeed there should probably be a discussion about it on WT:DYK, as that rule is so vague that entire discussions and time have been wasted on how to interpret it and determine what makes a hook "interesting to a broad audience". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't be too generous with the indenting. Who knows how many more. - "appealing" and "interesting" don't carry the same meaning for me, appealing being has to create an immediate sensation, while interesting is about anything not boring. A hook should not say the sky is blue, is about all that requests. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Imagine, HS was your father, and you went to a reception where you are known and introduce him: Would you say: this is my dad who was in long improsonment after the war? I'd say this is my dad who recorded Gurre Lieder with Kubelik, and they#D not admit they don't know Gurre Lieder and Kubelik but after wards ask Wikipedia ;) - In the German Wikipedia, where only one link is allowed, I'd think of something else, but here - I promote the other topics with the main topic, intentionally so. - I confess that during my first year with DYK, when I wrote about a Bach cantata on a weekly basis, it happened that I coldn't expand enough for 5 times, - then I'd write about some singer who performed in it and mentioned the singer with the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
That would be true if you went to a reception of music aficionados. But if it was a general celebration, you would say ALT1. I totally agree with Narutolovehinata5 and Ykraps on this one. Writing a hook that piques the interest of more readers will also deliver more readers to your page, where they can learn what they never knew about opera. (Although I must add that they won't learn very much, as this is just a start-class article giving a resume of his work.) Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Gurre Lieder isn't even an opera. Ready to give up explaining. Under no condition would the only thing I'd say be something about his time as prisoner of war. - I didn't even write this article, but feel I spent about five times longer on this nomination than writing a new one. For what? 500 extra clicks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, you don't have to spend more time on this. Just write an interesting hook that doesn't spout "name, rank, serial number" (aka singer, role, work). We are trying so hard to build DYK's reputation for interesting hooks. Why can't music hooks also be interesting? Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
And please forgive my total lack of knowledge of the difference between an opera and a cantata. I daresay I'm like most of your readers on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Above, I suggested to use the English premiere, or the Berlin Mephistopheles. Befor wording something, I'd like to hear if that might work. - The rank/serial number comparison doesn't work. It's more a bravery medal. A few sing Siegfried, but fewer Gurre Lieder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I was sure I picked the most unique (and thus interesting) fact, but obviously I am not up to the job. Pinging Ritchie and Eeng, per yesterday's chat, for help to a hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    I hear and I obey. I won't be able to give this my full attention until late today, but rest assured I'll do my best. I'll start by scouring the sources for any history of sexual perversion, embarrassing medical conditions, and so on -- those are always the best click-getters ;). EEng 15:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    To me the purpose of the hook is to lure the general reader (not someone with an existing interest in the subject area -- they'll click anyway) into clicking, and thereby being exposed to something new. Being captured as a German soldier per se is nothing special, but I do like the intersection of that with his musical training. It does take some convoluted explaining though:
ALT2 ... that German tenor Herbert Schachtschneider was captured by the British during World War II, and after being released in England stayed on there to be a pupil of voice trainer Hans Nachod?
I threw together a stub on Nachod. Gerda, I'm not sure if "voice trainer" is the right characterization of Nachod (teacher? coach?), so please check me on that. EEng 01:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that could be a suitable compromise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, "pupil" is an old-fashioned word, the teacher is not better known than Arnold Schoenberg in the original hook (and the only thing our article tells us about him is that he created the tenor part pf Gurre Lieder, - the irony!), and it has now word about what the subject accomplished. He is passive in two ways. You'd say "to study voice with Hans Nachod". - I just added one of my impossibly boring hooks (Template:Did you know nominations/Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel) - "but I still don't really think that it's hooky") to the DYKSTATS, concluding that the interests of our readers are unpredictable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
As I see I thought (how could I?) people would know the composer by the title, improving on that:
ALT3: ... that Herbert Schachtschneider, tenor at the Cologne Opera, recorded Arnold Schoenberg's Gurre-Lieder conducted by Rafael Kubelik? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
How well known the names are known has nothing to do with it. My thought was to intrigue the reader with the unlikely cause-and-effect of being taken a prisoner of war bringing the subject together with his future teacher in a foreign land. If the point of your A3 is that there's some special significance to artist A recording work B with conductor C, I have to agree with Naruto that that kind of hook fails utterly -- only a someone already steeped in the topic area will have any idea what the significance is, and such people will click anyway because it's an area of interest to them. Hooks need to appeal to people who know little or nothing about the topic area, or they fail to do their job. Anyway, A2 is the best I could do -- I admit it's not all that great but there's not much to work with here. I hope you will call on me again sometime and I'll be able to do a better job for you. EEng 08:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you!! Secondly, I strongly believe that whoever hasn't heard of Arnold Schoenberg will not enjoy a bit of the article in question. Thirdly, I believe as strongly that our readers can surprise us, such as 5k+ clicking on "Aus der Tiefe rufe ich" yesterday, - more than on the bolded article, - I conclude that they GO for the unknown. Finally: here's an ALT for a compromise
ALT4: ... that after Herbert Schachtschneider was a prisoner of war in England, he stayed in the country to study voice with Hans Nachod, and became a leading tenor at the Cologne Opera? - That teacher's article will need to grow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT4 is a little longish and I really don't know if the name of the person is necessary, given EEng's comments above. How about:
ALT4a ... that after Herbert Schachtschneider was a prisoner of war in England, he became a leading tenor at the Cologne Opera?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT4b has two unconnected items. We can drop the name of the teacher, but can also expand, - found an interesting detailed source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT3b: ... that after Herbert Schachtschneider was a prisoner of war in England, he stayed there to study voice with a cousin of Arnold Schoenberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd add back some detail to orient the reader:
ALT3c: ... that after German tenor Herbert Schachtschneider was a World War II prisoner of war in England, he stayed there to study voice with a cousin of Arnold Schoenberg?
EEng 17:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer ALT4 without the name of his teacher. In this case, I'd also move the target article to a little later in the hook:
  • ALT4d: ... that after being held as a prisoner of war in England, Herbert Schachtschneider stayed in the country to study voice and became a leading tenor at the Cologne Opera? Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for offering, but he had studied before, while this reads as if it was the first time. I'd be happy with keeping the Schoenberg connection, because much in the article is related to the composer. Schachtschneider almost "inherited" the Gurre Lieder from the man for whom they were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on March 25[edit]

Golem (Casken opera)

  • ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem received the first Britten Award for Composition? Source: book source

Created by Marosc9 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg - new and long enough (barely). Inline citations checks. Review made. No image to review. Hook looks interesting enough for inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg What is this award? If it's notable, can a page be started to link it? Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No idea. Midnight, and Easter for 2 days. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would have created a page on the Britten Award for Composition myself but research on the internet came up with almost nothing on it beyond John Casken being the first winner for Golem and Philip Cashian being the second winner, though I don't know what the composition was in his case. I've emailed the Britten Pears Foundation today who, if anyone should, should have more information. Let's see what they come back with. --Marosc9 (talk)
  • @Marosc9: thank you. But if it's not a notable award, why are you using it as a hook fact? Could you suggest another hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you need to ask those questions of the nominator Gerda Arendt. I'm hoping the Pears Britten Foundation will be able to provide enough of a lead so that I can write an article on the award.
  • Suggesting ALTs below, might work better since the award in question does have an article (which says that it is considered the Oscars of classical music):
ALT1 ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem won the 1991 Gramophone Classical Music Award for Best Contemporary Recording?
ALT2 ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem is a recipient of a Gramophone Classical Music Award, often considered as the "Oscars of classical music"?
@Gerda Arendt, Marosc9, BabbaQ, and Yoninah: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for offering. ALT1 is fine by me. ALT2 has too much focus on the award for my taste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT hooks, and also to do the rest of the "within policy" checks (neutrality and free of close paraphrasing, etc.). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 2[edit]

Nasir-ud-Daulah

Nasir-ud-Daulah
Nasir-ud-Daulah

5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 10:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. It's been nearly three weeks without any follow-up. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article meets the technical requirements. Assuming good faith for the offline sources. No close paraphrasing found, QPQ done. However, the children table lacks a reference, and I feel that the current hook might be too prosaic to be hooky. Perhaps a better hook could be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: The children table has been removed. New hook
I think that's a much better hook. Will try to give this a full review by tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay as I had been caught up in other matters. Anyway, I have two issues at the moment: firstly, the sentence discussing ALT1 lacks a footnote. Secondly, are there more details about this revenue administration system? The sentence that comes after seems to talk more about government administration than the revenue administration. Or was that sentence the one which discussed the revenue administration system? The wording isn't very clear on that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have now added an inline cite
Comment I know we've moved on from Alt0, but just in case: 'restrained' is probably not the intended word. Refrained? --valereee (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Probably. I am not a native speaker of English. What I meant that Lord Bentick did not interfere into Hyderabad state during the reign of the Nizam Nasir-ud-daulah. RRD (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Royroydeb, 'refrained from interfering', then! He might have 'restrained himself from interfering' also. It's a mistake even native speakers might make. --valereee (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 4[edit]

Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

Created by Night Lantern (talk). Self-nominated at 09:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Will be claiming this for review; I have struck ALT1 as being too long and too winding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Took a quick look at it and the article is a bit long for a short review, but right now my concern is the "Background" section. It doesn't seem to present the material in a neutral way, and even seems to use some POV-ish language. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for the review Mr. errr.. Naruto? ?? Regarding the "background section", do you mean the POV on word such as "ignorance"? Seems I don't have idea on what choice of words that are very suitable for the replacement, mind to share some suggestion? Night Lanternhalo? 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This would include words that "Among the very sensitive breached agreement", "negligence", "cannot appreciate the diversity and decentralisation were connected in the process aside from the ignorance", which are not suitable for Wikipedia in their current form. One suggestion I could give could be to request for a copyedit of the article over at WP:GOCE/R; this could also prove useful as there are also quite a few grammatical errors in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg I've gone ahead and requested a copyedit; this nomination should be put on hold until that is finished. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. Naruto. ? Night Lanternhalo? 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hi Narutolovehinata5, I have rewritten the background section. There's still a lot of room for improvement, so it would still benefit from a GOCE lookover, but I believe it is an improvement in terms of POV. CMD (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll defer comment until the copyedit is accomplished given the sheer length of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg I received a message that the copyedit will not be finished due to concerns about copyright violations, as well as a general need for restructuring. Taking these into account, the article does not appear to be ready for DYK at this time. Sorry for the bad news. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
After the copy-edit by Mr. Blackmane, the percentage of copyright violation is about 37.9% based on data from Earwig's. I agree there still the need for sentence restructuring, thank you for taking your time to review the nomination. Many thanks to the copy editor as well. ? Night Lanternhalo? 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
As I've been pinged, I'll add a few comments. The biggest problem (apart from copyvio) is the chronology is all over the place, especially with the use of sources. Some sources are used to discuss aspects that occurred before the vote, but the same source would also be used for aspects that occurred after the vote. This would be very confusing for the reader. I would suggest reconsidering the layout of the reaction section. Also, the responses sections needs a massive pruning, there's more material on the response than there is on the actual substance of the amendment. Just my 2 cents. Blackmane (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Articles created/expanded on April 6[edit]

Amy Wax

Created by Mhym (talk). Self-nominated at 02:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Comment. There was an earlier (first paragraphs nearly identical, except for some deletions by the nom in this second one) version of this page at AFC by an editor other than the nom here: http://www.aylvzhu.com/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 In some ways that earlier version was better -- it had footnotes for every assertion in the first few paragraphs, while in this version nom took them out. This version also needs grammar cleanup - "the" and "a" and similar words were dropped from the first version, where needed. Also, some facts, like that the subject attended Harvard Law School, were deleted for some reason. I think if the first version is made viewable and this one is improved along these lines this will be better for approval for this category. Also, when in this version nom writes "Amy Wax has been called "notorious..", maybe it would be an improvement to say by whom. Also, it may be a good idea to have the controversy paragraph, which presents only one side, instead comply with wp:npov (representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic; and switching out "claimed" for "said"; etc.).2604:2000:E010:1100:A066:E3A3:DD44:3FFC (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a stub, not a WP:GA. I agree it can use some work. That's part of the purpose of DYK - to bring attention to new or newly revised article, if I remember correctly. As to your assertion - I did not copy anyone's previous article but wrote from scratch instead. Some technical wording is copied from Wax's CV, which may explain similarities. I don't think terminology and official award titles are a copyvio. Please fee free to improve the article and/or the hook. Mhym (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. First, can an admin please make available the article that was hidden from view here: http://www.aylvzhu.com/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 ? It has important information that should be in this article, for one thing. Its was created before this draft, its deletion followed shortly (by mere hours) the submission of this article, and its deletion is not un-controversial (which was the asserted basis for its deletion).
Second, I agree a stub is fine. But for an article to appear at DYK on the main page, I think we should be careful to have footnotes for every assertion. The deleted draft had them - for the same information where the footnotes are missing here. One of the reasons I have asked for the deleted draft page to be restored.
The prior version also has fixes to the grammatical problems of missing words that I noted we have in this second version. For the main page, I do not think we want such errors.
Also, you did not say anything about the problem I pointed out with the controversy paragraph you drafted. It presents only one side. I think for the main page in particular, we would want to comply with wp:npov. This does not. To do that we would have to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We would also switch out "claimed" for "said", as wp:npov suggests.2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as providing all the refs and links - I don't have access to those which used to be there. Please help me with this if you have them. I guess I don't see any vio of WP:NPOV. Basically, it's all biographical, no opinion based. As in she said something. Others didn't like it. Some people called on UPenn to fire her. UPenn didn't. What exactly is non-neutral here? Reporting groundswell of support of Wax? I don't know if that happened. Mhym (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Happy to help. I've now twice asked the editor who deleted it to restore it (in addition, it its deletion is not controversial, the reason given for deleting it). I've also asked here - maybe an admin here will help. It has more information (her attending Harvard Law, family background, etc). If you read NPOV, you will see that the cherry-picking of those with one view of her statement, while leaving out completely those who support her statement (or her right to make it), is something we are supposed to try to avoid. There are a number of articles pointing out the other camp; in your research you would have seen them. If you want me to, I will do the work. Also, saying "claimed" instead of "said" - as the guideline states - is a sign of not being sensitive to the need for npov. The guideline explains why. Anyway, once we get the original draft, which was more complete and had all the references that are missing, I will be happy to help you get this promoted. BTW - what inspired you to write this article just now (unless it was coincidence), while there was another draft article awaiting promotion (that incident was in the news, but quite a while ago)?2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear you can help. I came across critique/praise of her research work, tried to look her up and found no WP article. I don't care for the controversies and didn't hear them at the time. But they clearly make her notable, probably more than her research work, unfortunately. Thus I included the section. AFIK, the wording can be massaged and improved in any way. That's also why I made a DYK nom - so that other editor help improve on the article while I am no longer very involved. Mhym (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Great. I am happy to help you improve this article as soon as an admin helps us by restoring for reference the draft that preceded this one, with the relevant text and footnotes that this later version is missing. It was deleted as a "non-controversial" deletion, but since there is now controversy about it being deleted, I hope an admin can restore it (at least long enough for us to look at it to improve this one). Then we can improve this, improve the npov issue, and put this in shape for a DYK for you. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Here, see why this was so weird! Just when the draft of this subject was cleared of any question of copyvio, after it had been sitting awaiting for a couple of days for all to see, as it awaited promotion to article status -- that was the very same day of all days that your article was created! [26] And its not as though she was in the news that day, or week, or month. And as you can see, the article that had been put up for review prior to your draft is very similar (except for the last paragraph that yours added). [27] I will work now to help you to make your draft better, adding the omitted footnotes, etc.2604:2000:E010:1100:D0B2:B1DE:173C:580 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your work! The article is in a good shape now and ready for review. Mhym (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment: I would recommend against using the word "controversial" in a hook without explaining how she has been controversial. feminist (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Came to suggest the same thing. Taken by itself, "controversial" is confusing because it doesn't define what kind of statements caused the controversy. hinnk (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I agree with the above two comments. I think the article itself is now fine. I added the footnotes from the prior article, so that every assertion has a footnote. And there is now a balance in the controversy section, with views on both sides reflected -- rather than just one side. But as the prior editors point out, the hook could use some massaging (also, the bit in the third hook about race relations isn't quite accurate). 2604:2000:E010:1100:A82D:DCDC:4C65:430B (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 7[edit]

Ranbir Singh of Jammu and Kashmir

Ranbir Singh
Ranbir Singh

5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Not hooky enough. Propose a new hook, please. Our article about RPC is shoddy. WBGconverse 05:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it is quite hooky: of course, the main interest isn't in so-and-so having done such-and-such, but in the fact that this such-and-such exists: it's generally interesting to find out that one territory of a country could have a different criminal code from the rest. – Uanfala (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Too many links are distracting. Piped stuff are generally avoided. WBGconverse 13:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 9[edit]

Bohumil Herlischka

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

  • I've struck ALT0 as being insufficiently interesting to a broad audience. ALT1 is somewhat better, if only because of the mention of the tour stopping in Israel. I will leave the reviewing to another editor. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I object to the striking but leave it to someone else to undo it. A Czech stage director introduces the works by a underrated Czech composer to Germany, initiating him to be staged rather frequently, and this is so much appreciated that a cycle is done, comparable to the Wagner's Ring cycle, and the Zurich Mozart cycle, and you think that's not interesting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's interesting to people unfamiliar with classical music, which I'd assume is the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. Remember that we are writing for general audiences, not opera fans, and I don't think the typical reader would know or even care who these people are or what these songs are. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
These songs are operas - works of several hours each, and the staging of a single one is a giant and expensive effort, and now it's six! - and again, people who don't know what an opera is will not enjoy the article, but we can also tells those something special who recognize names as being Czech. - For some reason, you seamed to understand that for the artist Overton we should say something differentiating her work of giant sculptures from tiny pictures, - why not here? The Schoenberg was a great feat, no doubt about that (people though it could not be staged at all, and the premiere was music only), but the Czech, where the soprano said that he really knew about peasants in that area and how to get that on the stage, connects better to his origins. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry Gerda, but are you having difficulty understanding my point? You said that "people who don't know what an opera is will not enjoy the article", and that is actually a major issue! If anything, that kind of viewpoint would even further disqualify the hook fact from being allowed: a hook being interesting to a broad audience is required, and those that do not meet that standard tend to be rejected. DYK is intended for people who don't know about a topic, and writing hooks with that are intentionally made to be interesting only to a specific audience not only is against DYK rules, but defeats the whole purpose of the project. Think of it this way: you want to educate common people about classical music, right? Well if I was an ordinary reader, no way would I read the hook or the article since I would not get the point. We're trying to help you here Gerda: this is not intended to discredit you, your contributions, or your interests, we are only trying to help you avoid complaints and the like. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't help that my topics are kind of in a niche, and the hooks about them have a tendency to follow, - or would not say something specific to the topics. - I was trained to make only 2 comments in a discussion, sorry for a third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

New day (from my talk, where this came up): If I have only one sentence to speak about a person's life achievements, I want that to be his best, regardless of that it may not be of interest to the general reader, just believing firmly that it should interest the general leader. For the sake of brevity (but loosing that it was a project that took 8 years to be accomplished):

ALT2: ... that Bohumil Herlischka staged a cycle of six operas by Leo? Janá?ek, presented at the Deutsche Oper am Rhein in the 1977/78 season? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, ALT2 doesn't really solve the issues I had raised above regarding broad interest. Again, it really only appeals to classical music enthusiasts, and I can't see people of other interests being fond of this one. Right now, one possible way move forward appears to be to go with a variation of ALT1. Something along the lines of:
ALT3... that Bohumil Herlischka's production of Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, which premiered at the Hamburg State Opera, was later performed in Israel?
Personally I think that a German production being performed at a non-European country could be appealing. If you don't like this suggestion, there are still other possibilities, like how one of his plays was created to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Since Gerda wasn't able to respond, I'll propose the following hooks below based on my above suggestion; she is free to reject them if she doesn't like them, or to suggest a reword:

ALT4 ... that Bohumil Herlischka directed the opera Behold the Sun – Die Wiedert?ufer, which was commissioned for the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein?
ALT4a ... that Bohumil Herlischka directed the opera Behold the Sun – Die Wiedert?ufer for the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein?
ALT4b ... that to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein, Bohumil Herlischka directed the opera Behold the Sun – Die Wiedert?ufer?

I just realized that had this been proposed earlier, the hook could have worked as a special occasion hook for April 19, but I guess it's too late now. Here are other possible alternatives that hopefully aren't too complicated:

ALT5 ... that Bohumil Herlischka served as the stage director of the Prague National Theatre from 1951 to 1957?
ALT6 ... that Bohumil Herlischka's staging of Weber's opera Der Freischütz (The Marksman) was met with strong opposition as he did not stage its traditional Happy Ending?
ALT7 ... that Bohumil Herlischka's 1964 staging of Der ferne Klang (The Distant Sound) was the first performance of a Franz Schreker opera since the banning of Schreker's music by the Nazis in 1933?

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Late to this feast, - when I show playlist on my user talk, I'm out singing, and can't reply. We do have a massive misunderstanding. I didn't say find a hook, I objected to striking one, not being the reviewer, just because it's not fascinating for you. I fight less when I invested less time in an article, but this one was really hard for me to expand enough. Of all the hooks, take ALT1. I am still convinced that the original (or ALT2) is a better summary of this specific person's cultural background and enormous feat. I don't remember any cycle of six operas, and then unknown ones that are much harder to teach the performers! - All the Wiedert?ufer hooks miss world premiere, and I'm not sure our average reader would deduce that from "commissioned". Nice hooks for the opera, but not for him. Perhaps I'll write it some day. Talking about Prague while his mature career was NOT there seems wrong to me. I saw a performance of Der Freischütz last year, also without happy ending. ALT7 is good, but again, says more about Schreker's work and fate than Herlischka, other than that he has courage. Yes, go for ALT7a (formatted), it mentions Nazi, that's always good for click numbers. I hope some sarcasm can be noticed.
ALT7a ... that Bohumil Herlischka's 1964 staging of Der ferne Klang was the first performance of a Schreker opera since the banning of his music by the Nazis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As I proposed several hooks, this will need a review by a new reviewer. @Serial Number 54129: Can you do so? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've unstruck ALT0. I completely disagree with any notion that this is "uninteresting to a broad audience". Janacek is one of the greatest composers of the 20th century, but his operas are far less known than his string quartets. The fact is that Herlischka introduced Janacek's operas to Western european audience, setting the roots for this music to be performed with higher frequency there. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The issue here though is not about Janá?ek, but the hook fact about staging of the six operas, and the hook doesn't even imply anything about the "introducing to Western audiences" part. And in all honestly, there are other facts mentioned in the article that are more intriguing to broad audiences (unlike ALT0 which in all honesty only really appeals to classical music fans). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been over a month since the last comment here. I've gone ahead and restruck ALT0 as I don't believe that Zingarese's comments sufficiently addressed the concerns I had about the hook (specifically, when they said that Herlischka helped raised Janacek's profile in Western circles, while the hook itself does not say that and is frankly too complicated as I don't think the part about the cycle is necessary). As a compromise, I am listing below a simplified version and making a request at WT:DYK for a new reviewer (I personally find both ALT0 and the ALT0a I'm proposing below as rather bland, but I'll let the new reviewer decide). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

ALT0a... that Bohumil Herlischka staged six operas by Leo? Janá?ek at the Deutsche Oper am Rhein?
Better than nothing, but you are missing the most unusual aspect, that they were also played in one season. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to accommodate that request in the context of ALT0a, and honestly I don't think that would appeal to a broad audience. Reading through this again, ALT5, ALT6, and ATL7a might be our best options here. Would anyone new be willing to take a look at this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Have it your way. (I think the original hook did just that.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 10[edit]

Libro de los Epítomes

Ferdinand Columbus
Ferdinand Columbus
  • Reviewed: To be done
One day late, hope that's OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 09:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC).

QPQ: Red XN - Not done
Overall: Symbol question.svg Ready to go once the QPQ is complete. hinnk (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I confess that I don't like possessive, then pictured, finally what it is.
ALT1: ... that in 2019, Libro de los Epítomes, a book by Ferdinand Columbus (pictured), was rediscovered after nearly 500 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 11[edit]

Kaj Linna

Kaj Linna
Kaj Linna



  • ... that Kaj Linna (pictured) was exonerated for murder after a true-crime pod started to raise questions about the case and trial of Linna? Source: [30]

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC).

Comment (not a full review) The hook needs work - do you mean podcast rather than pod? Did you mean to repeat his name? How about:
  • ALT1 ... that a podcast helped exonerate Kaj Linna (pictured) after 12 years of imprisonment?
Article needs some attention too. Spelling / grammar / biographical details / clearer about timing of events. PeaBrainC (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 12[edit]

George Ali Murad Khan

George Ali Murad Khan seated on throne
George Ali Murad Khan seated on throne

Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 14:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Nice decent article but we need a better source for the claim. Will indulge in some copy-editing. WBGconverse 12:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Expanded the article by 2X. Struck out hook; for being inaccurate. Once again, I cannot over-emphasize the need to abide by WP:HISTRS.To quote a reliable source:-In contrast, by 1951 India – all princely states included – was participating in the first nationwide general elections on the principles of ‘one person, one vote’ and representative government, while in Pakistan only Khairpur and Bahawalpur even achieved universal adult franchise, and no state realised full responsible government. The issue of pin-pointing the state that first achieved universal-suffrage -- Bahawalpur (wherein a very similar law was passed days before Khairpur's) or Khairpur or the entire country of India (which has decided on suffrage, long back and preparations of voters list et al were in swing for years) is not easy. WBGconverse 15:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Winged Blades of Godric: The claim in the hook was cited from The Friday Times, a Pakistani newspaper. Also in this revision, you have added a fact and added citation needed to it! RRD (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A Pakistani source has all the reasons to claim exaggerated stuff. Similar for Indian sources; if this was an India-based article. My source was a peer-reviewed scholarly publication and I see at-least one leading expert in the area, as a co-author.
  • As to cn template; I need to get the precise bibliographic data of the source, once I go for my next visit to National Library of India :-( The soft-copy that I can access through my subscriptions has a lack of it. WBGconverse 13:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I also have to note that the article currently has a citation needed tag. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have removed the unsourced statement.

Articles created/expanded on April 13[edit]

Birjis Qadr

Birjis Qadr
Birjis Qadr
  • ... that Nawab Birjis Qadr became a poet during his exile in Nepal?

5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 16:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Looks good. Source-checks pending. WBGconverse 12:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg A new reviewer is needed as the original reviewer has been unable to return in spite of a talk page message. If no one else picks this up in a week, I'll do it myself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is an expansion and is new enough and long enough. Winged Blades of Godric seems to have checked the referencing of the article. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 5 image hook. The article needs copy-editing and clarification, and a new hook is needed with more context and hook interest. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This nomination also appears to have been made 8 days after expansion began. The reviewer should decide if it merits IAR. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Just adding my two cents here. As the nomination was only a day late, I don't see any harm in allowing it per WP:IAR. Secondly, here are two possible alternative hooks: the first is basically the original hook with added context, the second adds the reason for his exile:
ALT1 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, became a poet after going into exile in Nepal?
ALT2 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, went into exile in Nepal after the Capture of Lucknow in 1857?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It strikes me that one very interesting fact is that he went into exile when he was twelve years old. Adding that fact to both of the above hooks to get ALT3 and ALT4:
  • ALT3 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, became a poet after going into exile in Nepal when he was 12?
  • ALT4 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, went into exile in Nepal after the Capture of Lucknow in 1857 when he was 12? —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem with ALT3 is that it's a bit of a run-on sentence, the hook makes it vague if he was 12 when he went into exile or when he became a poet. ALT4 kind of solves the issue, but in any case, perhaps a reword is in order. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 14[edit]

Opon Ifá

  • ... the Ifá divination system employs Opon Ifá to solve quotidian problems via communicating with spirits?

5x expanded by Sangbin1999 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Despite some expansion, this is still quite a way short of a 5x expansion. See Wikipedia:Did you know for eligibility criteria. Spokoyni (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: to clarify, the article was 1534 prose characters prior to expansion, and is 4224 prose characters currently. It would need to expand further to meet the 5x expansion requirement to 7670 prose characters, or by more additional characters than have already been added (2690 have been added; another 3446 would be needed). If Sangbin1999 thinks there's enough encyclopedic material to add to reach 7670 prose characters, they're welcome to expand it further and let us know they'll be doing so over the next little while; otherwise, the nomination will have to be closed. Thanks. (I have formatted the hook so it meets DYK requirements.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that the article has reached 9207 prose characters, and is a 6x expansion, more than is needed for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is certainly long enough and of good quality/meeting all policies/well sourced. The time factor I'll leave to promotors to decide on - in future it will aid reviews if your nomination is made with the necessary expansion nearly or already completed, as this has taken several weeks to get to DYK length and technically the "new" aspect requires it to take no more than seven days. Is there any reason why "quotidian problems" is used instead of the more accessible "daily problems"? The article does not use "quotidian" at any point. And while the article discusses how the divination process works, there is no mention of what sort of problems, daily or otherwise, it is intended to help with. This would need to be explicitly sourced and added to the article. Spokoyni (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The article creator doesn't seem to have edited much, or to be really engaged with this review. It's certainly DYK-worthy though, and its the hook that is the sticking point. I've added a few more options below that are sourced in the article, if @Sangbin1999: would like to comment, or another reviewer can confirm. BTW, from what I read in the article and the notes from their tutor, the plural of Opon Ifá is the same as the singular. Spokoyni (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Opon Ifá are used in the Ifá divination system of Yoruba tradition?
  • ALT2 ... that the design of Opon Ifá praise and acknowledge the work of the babalawo?

Articles created/expanded on April 18[edit]

James Acaster's Classic Scrapes

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 12:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Interesting book, on excellent sources, no copyvio obvious, quotations clearly marked and cited. - I would not have clicked on this, I confess, as a foreigner who doesn't know Acaster, not what "scrapes" means, and little interested in cabbage. How about at least hinting at that it is a funny/witty autobiography by a young man? Some from reception rather than a story bit? Think about it, please. If you love the hook as it is, I'll approve it. I know the feeling ... ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
To be honest I am quite keen on the cabbage hook. I thought "scrapes" was a fairly common term—perhaps it's more a UK thing. But I don't mind adding some context so I'm happy with either the above or either of the following (or a hybrid): Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, could you now change ALT1, avoiding to have his name twice? Pipe link or what you can think of.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't see any sensible way of doing this. "an autobiography by a comedian" would violate WP:EASTER (and sounds a bit weird) and "James Acaster's" is part of the book title. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Well, here's an Easter egg version, three choices for the prep builder:
ALT3: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes, an autobiography by the comedian, ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank war between him and a nine-year-old child?
Symbol confirmed.svg unless you have a new idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. This is how I would phrase it:
  • ALT1a: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank war between the comedian and a nine-year-old child?
  • But there is no inline cite for the hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that's excellent phrasing. The best source for the fact is the book itself, and the work itself is by convention not cited in the synopsis section. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I am reluctant because "scrapes ends" - plural noun + singular verb - sounds wrong or at least irritating to me, also let's not forget that a reader doesn't know it's a book, and in that version never knows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't sound wrong to me. I'd be happy with "... that the autobiography James...." if you want to mention that it's a book. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd approve that if you word it. A prep builder should not face the task of assembling a hook from a proposal with comments ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg - like that so much that I strike the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg @Bilorv:@Gerda Arendt: I've pulled this from the Queue. Per WP:DYK "Cited hook – Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." This hook is not sourced with an inline citation. Plot summaries are not sourced, so you need to have a different hook, please. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, of course, you can source that part of the Synopsis section in the article (at the end of the "The book ends" sentence) and retain the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to be frank: this is nonsense. I can give you direct page numbers or quotes from the book if you want. I've made the source very clear to editors and it's incredibly obvious to any reader that the source for the book summary is the book (!!!). But it's standard practice to leave the synopsis uncited. This wouldn't cause a problem at FAC. It's absolutely nonsensical and violates the spirit of all the rules we have for it to cause a problem at DYK. I see that the hook was pulled because The Rambling Man listed it at WP:ERRORS2. I'm not going to be bullied into writing a different hook because TRM wants to artificially inflate his ERRORS2 count. I'm also not going to introduce a formatting inconsistency that actually would be pointed out at FAC (hypothetically of course; I'm well aware the article is nowhere near that standard). Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being frank. And so will I. This had nothing to do with anybody's anything. As an admin, I routinely check the Queues to see if anything is amiss. That's what admins are supposed to do, and it had nothing to do with anything except that I was doing a routine check. This was, per the rules. If I had not pulled it, chances are pretty good that another admin would have. Nobody is trying to bully you. And if you read BlueMoonset's comments above, he gave you an easy resolution to this. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In that case I genuinely apologise for the mistake I made in assuming this was related to the ERRORS2 kerfuffle. The simplest resolution is to approve the hook as there is nothing wrong here. Of course the page is not under my ownership but I certainly will not be adding an inline citation in a place where it does not belong. Incites are useful for precisely two things that I can think of: verifying that content on Wikipedia is true; and allowing readers to find the source from which the information comes from. There's no-one that I can see disputing that the content is verifiably true and I can think of no reader who wouldn't understand that the source they need to view to see what's in the book is the book itself. Furthermore I can see no-one disputing that it's convention for book synopses to be implicitly cited to the work itself. It doesn't help anyone to pull a hook based on a bureaucratic rule that common sense dictates is irrelevant here. That's why we have admins—for human discretion—and not just bots. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
All right, then. Apology accepted. I feel I did what I should. But I'll leave a note over at WT:DYK asking others to comment here on this. Whatever they decide, is what they decide, and I won't interfere in it. Just as a passing thought, there is something worse than an approved hook being pulled from Queue or Prep, where it can later be re-added and have a full run. And that's when a hook gets pulled while it's on the main page before its run is done. It's such a shame when it gets pulled from the main page. We are all human, stepping all over each other's feet trying to accomplish the same thing. Good luck with this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Had this been a fiction book, I would have said outright that the hook wouldn't be allowed at all. As it stands, since it's an autobiography and does talk about a real-world event, I see no issues with that. With that said, this is a fairly complicated case: DYK rules state that hook facts must be cited inline. On the other hand, summaries of books generally do not require sources as it's assumed in good faith that the source is the work itself. While I would have said that as a compromise, it could be possible to add a footnote to the relevant sentence mentioning the book page, I don't really think it's really necessary and we can probably do an WP:IAR case here ignoring the relevant rule. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO this is a clear case of following the rules for citing the DYK hook fact, or choosing another hook that follows the rules for citing the DYK hook fact. While plot synopses are exempt from being cited in general, when you want to take a hook fact from the synopsis, you will have to cite that sentence. And it's not true that all plot synopses go uncited; I just wrote an article on a work of fiction, Silver Wedding (novel), and cited all the sentences in the synopsis because otherwise the article would be largely unverified text and probably not accepted at DYK. Bilorv, please just cite the hook fact to the book page and we can move forward. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The cabbage incident is mentioned in The Sun [31] but I can't remember if we allow that tabloid as a reliable source. I can't find much other mention of it in secondary sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It really isn't a problem for DYK to cite the book itself. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Reviews Hub source (FN1) specifically mentions the cabbage incident; the book would be needed to cover the age of the child and the story being last in said book. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: If only to allay the concerns of other editors, I'd suggest you please just add the footnote to the relevant sentence so that this nomination can be approved. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have left the nominator a talk page message and will give them until June 5 to respond to the concerns. @Bilorv: Failure to respond will result in the nomination being closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: He didn't respond and has not edited the article since the middle of this month. Should I give him until June 5, or should this be closed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Completely up to you. I will respect your judgement on this. — Maile (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg As the nominator has apparently decline to resolve the issue that has been raised by others, this nomination is now being marked for closure as unsuccessful. It's a shame it has to end this way as the hook itself was really good, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Bilorv If you really still wish for this nomination to continue, please add the citation so that this marking will be reversed and the tick can be restored. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Start over. Another editor driven away?
ALT1c: ... that James Acaster's Classic Scrapes is a comedian's autobiography?
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Sorry, Bilorv, I liked yours better, but DYK and wikilawyering are one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Gerda what are you saying? The nominator's ALT1b hook is great; he just has to provide a cite. He refuses to do so. Who is "wikilawyering"? Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
If the editor doesn't add that cite which is required only by strict rules (because normally plot things don't have to be cited, and striking my angry comment anyway) someone else could do it. I would if I knew enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt You are the reviewer who signed off on the hook. If you cited the hook, then a different reviewer would need to sign off on your edit.— Maile (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I used the symbol "ready for a new review". To mark for closure because of one missing citation is something I can't accept. You can approve ALT1c, Maile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read: WP:AB section "The problem with autobiographies". For all the reasons contained therein. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
In all honesty, I don't see a good reason why we can't just simply cite the book itself, especially if other sources confirm the information anyway. I've read that guideline and I don't really agree with what it says, personally I'm assuming good faith that what the author wrote is accurate. And in any case, the hook does not even focus on the author, but it's a hook fact about the book itself. When you have a hook that says "the book ends with...", I see no problem with using the book as a source, regardless of the authenticity of the subject matter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Pardon: WP:AB is for Wikipedia articles that are autobiographies. This is a published book. We have sources saying it is. (Shaking head.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
As you well know, I have provided a citation. It's the book James Acaster's Classic Scrapes. Let me know if you want the ISBN number, publication details, direct quotes etc. Perfectly happy to clear up any doubts you have about the factual accuracy of the hook. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
We never said anything about doubting the accuracy of the hook. In fact, we even found other sources confirming the fact. All that was requested was for a footnote to be added to the relevant sentence. Now there is a legitimate question as to whether or not the rule is too strictly enforced (personally I think it is, but that's a topic for another time), but in this case, as there are outstanding concerns, it is better to just follow them than to ignore them. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
If the rule was created to verify that DYK facts are verifiably true and there are no doubts that the DYK fact is verifiably true, then I think you've answered the question above: 'Who is "wikilawyering"?' Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not wikilawyering, it's called "following the rules". Please Bilorv, please just do what is requested, so that the article can be promoted and this discussion can be done and over with. Just continuing this discussion would be a waste of time, better to do what is said than to go around in circles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering a lack of response from the nominator, we have two options here: 1. go with Gerda's proposal, as it avoids the plot point thing entirely and it uses a hook fact that already has an inline citation, or 2. an editor will have to boldly add the relevant citation (whether the book itself or one of the reviews) to the hook fact sentence about the cabbage incident. Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv, Gerda Arendt, Yoninah, BlueMoonset, Maile66, Amakuru, Moonraker, and Valereee: How do we move forward with this discussion? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Close this one as unsuccessful. Rather than simply providing an inline citation, the nominator either keeps arguing, or doesn't respond. BlueMoonset gave the nominator an easy solution when this first came up. Per WT:DYK, other editors are in agreement that the citation should be provided. 1. — Maile (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: Couldn't it just be possible for another editor to make the required changes? Failing a DYK nomination just because of an easily resolvable issue doesn't seem very fair, especially when you consider that there are no other issues once this is done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, if any editor—Bilorv, you, someone passing by—adds the necessary citations before this closes and lets us know here, then the nomination continues. If they don't, then it closes. Hook facts have always required specific referencing (something three sentences later, for example, was always deemed inadequate), and this isn't the first time such a cite was required for a "plot" point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (sorry for accidentally replying to the old version where I was pinged.)
    You could approve ALT1c, for a starter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Any of you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    With all due respect, Gerda (and as you know, I respect you a lot for your awesomeness!) it doesn't look to me like ALT1C meets the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement. The fact that the book is his autobiography is pretty much just its definition, and is not really "hooky" is it? I think the choice here is either to go with the cabbage incident, properly cited, or just to put this thing out of its misery - given that it's already been marked as "closed" twice. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    I respectfully disagree, because I believe that the title itself is hooky. - Rather than having this closed I'd dig into where the ref was found, but have enough to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru Regarding ALT1c, I would also be cautious about any hook that could be interpreted as product placement, i.e. WP:PROMOTION. Especially when this is not an individual source citation, but proposed on the idea that the entire book is the source itself. Regardless of AGF, we do have admins who believe they are acting in Wikipedia's best interest by yanking a hook off the main page, and asking questions later. Or not asking questions, but yanking it with only an edit summary. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


Symbol delete vote.svg We treat this like we do others. No hook source, no pass, no main page appearance. For whatever reason, no source has been provided. Instead, this nomination has wasted a lot of time of a lot of editors, but no source. — Maile (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course there's a source. James Acaster's Classic Scrapes (ISBN 9781472247186). I've offered above and will offer again to provide any direct page numbers or quotes from the book to allay any doubts that the hook is factually incorrect. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem is not that there are doubts about the accuracy of the source, the issue is that the source has not been added as a footnote to the relevant sentence. Please do this and this discussion will be finished. If you know the quote or the page number, what is preventing you from actually adding it to the article? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not my field of expertise, so here come a few mentionings of that cabbage (+ there's YouTube, and cabbages are on the title), and someone tell me please if reliable:
  1. https://cannonballread.com/2018/09/when-i-was-a-baby-i-urinated-into-my-own-mouth/ (This book is perfect for people who like British thing, quirky humour, and long tales about cabbages.)
  2. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/6159692/james-acaster-repertoire-netflix-tv/
  3. http://nsfordwriter.com/james-acasters-classic-scrapes/
  4. teh book: https://books.google.de/books?id=sjLdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT245
Have fun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an example of DYK editors spending far too much time rescuing a hook that the nominator has essentially given up on. We should really be using our time for other things. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gerda Arendt, the whole point here is that sources and a path forward have been provided, even before your list above; Bilorv simply won't add them despite being informed of DYK rules that require their addition. It's nice that you've offered up additional potential sources, but under the circumstances, absent that addition, it's moot. If the required sourcing supporting the hook fact is not in the article within 24 hours, I plan to close the nomination. It's taken up enough of everyone's time already. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I am willing to add a source, but asked - was that unclear? - which one would be reliable. I have no idea in the field, and don't want to add to the article what would have to be removed as not reliable. Please! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I don't think there's anything wrong with citing the book itself in this case. You can use the Cite book template to make things easier. As mentioned before, the issue isn't reliability of sources, but the nominator's apparent refusal to add a footnote to the sentence containing the hook fact. This entire discussion would have never happened if they had only done that action, which was requested early on. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I added two citations, and bite my tongue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Is The Sun really an RS? Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Gerda Arendt: No: in fact, The Sun is a deprecated source and should generally not be used as references in articles (see Wikipedia:Perennial sources). The alternative, of course, is simply to cite the book itself: perhaps Bilorv is willing to provide the page number so that another editor could use that in the referencing? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Didn't I ask exactly about that?? Some days I don't believe I can be understood here. Did you see that the other reference IS the book, only I didn't find the age of nine years there on the pages I can see. The page numbers I can see dealing with the prank are 247 to the end, already cited. The child's age was probably somewhere before, and I can't find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that the autobiography James Acaster's Classic Scrapes ends with a story about a cabbage-based prank? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Gerda, thank you for your valiant efforts. But ALT1b is still the best hook, and since the page creator refuses to cite it, this nomination should be rejected. Enough already. Yoninah (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I found the age of the child mentioned in one of the refs already in the article, and added it. I'd prefer ALT4, though. Biting my tongue more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I've no idea what discussion you're reading because it's certainly not the one on this page. Gerda Arendt has supplied two inline citations in the article which directly verify ALT1b; other editors above have acknowledged since the beginning of the discussion that the primary source of the book itself is a reliable source for the hook fact. Last I checked I didn't own the article or indeed the hook so rejecting Gerda Arendt's contributions to spite me directly seems like an odd move. And since Narutolovehinata5 has taken me up on my offer of supplying details—in my copy it's page 283, which says: "Mick is David's nine-year-old son." (in a chapter where, of course, Mick is discussed throughout as the boy involved in the cabbage-based pranks). Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 20[edit]

LGBT history in Poland

  • ... that despite its long history, Polish LGBT people started organizing only in the 80s?

Created by Kamilla? (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg I would love to get this through, but the article is lacking citations for a lot of text, and needs a copyedit. I'll wait for a response and see if there are significant updates. Kingsif (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Kingsif: I added the citations in place of all "citation neededs" and clarified few parts. but I would love to see someone help me with writing style, copyedit etc, as its not my strongest side in english. Kamilla? (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I made some corrections and added something. And maybe we should consider a more eye-catching DYK question - e.g. ... that throughout its history homosexuality has never been criminalized by the Polish law? (However, we would have to make sure whether it's really true.). BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg It looks mostly OK, but there are some serious concerns in the article. Firstly, it seems to contradict itself in the lead by saying that there have never been any Polish laws that persecute LGBT people, and then also says homosexuality was decriminalized in 1932 so this requires some clarification. Secondly, there are some POV issues. The statement in the lead that "Homophobia has been a common public attitude in Poland, thanks to the influence of Catholic Church in Polish public life, and the widespread conservatism of Polish society." is a clear POV indictment of the Catholic Church and perpetuates the misconception that the Church's opposition to homosexuality is based in homophobia (I am not saying there are no homophobic Catholics, but it is factually false to claim this is the reason the Catholic Church as an institution has historically opposed LGBT rights). Similarly, in the Second Polish Republic section, the article attributes the Catholic cultural taboo on homosexuality to ignorance. I do not see how that cannot be construed as a POV violation. (Keep in mind WP:OUTRAGE: Even perspectives you find morally offensive must be accurately portrayed). As another point, it should be mentioned in the main text that there is significant controversy over the sexual/asexual nature of adelphopoiesis, relegating that mention to a footnote makes this paragraph, in its context, seem to imply that these relationships were definitively sexual. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 22[edit]

Matthew H. Todd, Alice Motion

Professor Matt Todd
Professor Matt Todd
  • Comment: (1) I've offered ALTs to try for an informative and clear under-200 character wording. I think it is desirable to name the school involved, and also Turing if possible. Alternatives welcome.
    (2) Pkin8541 is new to DYK and fairly new to WP.
    (3) Todd article written in Draft space and moved to article space by Hughesdarren on 22 April 2019 – added to DYK nomination page for 22 April
    (4) Motion article written in Draft space and moved to article space by Pkin8541 on 24 April 2019
    (5) I (EdChem) will need to provide two QPQ reviews.

Created/expanded by Pkin8541 (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 02:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

I think it's important to quickly mention that it was price-hiked - some drugs are more expensive because there's a smaller number of people needing it, for example.

Pkin8541 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

QPQ: Red XN - Not yet? @EdChem:
Overall: Symbol question.svg Articles look good. I've suggested ALT6 below. Thoughts? @Pkin8541: Axem Titanium (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: I like it with a minor change to "synthesised it for less than 0.1%" Pkin8541 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok with me for ALT7. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 23[edit]

Mambo (Vodou)

  • ... that mambos must undergo a multistep initiation process in order for them to enter priesthood and establish their communication with the Vodou spirits? Brown, Karen McCarthy (2001). Mama Lola: A Vodou Priestess in Brooklyn. The University Press Group Ltd. ISBN 9780520224759.

Created/expanded by Thatgirljessie (talk). Nominated by Enwebb (talk) at 18:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Just a comment and not a review, but perhaps the hook could be reworded somewhat, as the wording does not make it immediately clear that "mambos" are female vodou priests (i.e. that fact is at the end rather than at the start). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This nomination falls short of the 5x expansion requirement according to DYKcheck, going from 978 to 3634 prose characters, when it would need to be 4890 prose characters, so currently less than a 4x expansion. In addition, the expansion started back on April 2 and the article should have been nominated within seven days, so it's two weeks late. Under those circumstances, it seems unlikely that the article will qualify for DYK, although as a first-time nominator—this is part of course work for a class at Bowdoin College—it might be possible for the an exception to be made for the nomination delay. The further expansion would be necessary for this to be considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: The course ended back on May 7 and the nominator hasn't edited since then, so I'm unsure if they will be able to return to this discussion (and in fact they appeared to never have responded). It's your call if this nomination can still continue, but personally, given the circumstances, I'm leaning towards marking this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed now that article is now well over 8x expanded (8533 prose characters) to determine whether it can proceed after having been nominated two weeks late. (We have recently given a first-time nominee a longer grace period than that.) According to the article talk page, the class does not end until May 16, so if there are issues with the nomination, there is still a short window where a response from the author might be possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 24[edit]

2019 Saudi Arabia mass execution

  • ... that on 23 April 2019 Saudi Arabia beheaded 37 convicted civilians, most of whose confessions were obtained under torture or written by their torturers? Sources: "According to the ESOHR's documentation, at least 21 people executed by Saudi Arabia today said in court that their statements were extracted under duress and torture" European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights; "Many said they were totally innocent, that their confessions had been written by the same people who had tortured them." CNN
    • ALT1:... that on 23 April 2019 Saudi Arabia beheaded 37 convicted civilians whose confessions were mostly obtained under torture or written by their torturers? Sources: "According to the ESOHR's documentation, at least 21 people executed by Saudi Arabia today said in court that their statements were extracted under duress and torture" European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights; "Many said they were totally innocent, that their confessions had been written by the same people who had tortured them." CNN

Created by Mbazri (talk) and Boud (talk). Nominated by Boud (talk) at 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

As page creator, I also suggest 3 hooks:

--Mbazri (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I clarified the ALT labels - we now have the original and ALT1 to ALT5; I removed and added the definite article "the" for grammaticality; we could also have "their arrests", making ALT2 and ALT3 slightly longer. Boud (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 25[edit]

Wildlife of Greece

  • ... that among the varied wildlife of Greece are over 5000 species of vascular plant and about 450 species of bird? Source: "In October 2013, the vascular flora of Greece comprised 5758 species and 1970 subspecies (native and naturalized), representing 6620 taxa, belonging to 1073 genera and 185 families." and "So far, 449 species of birds have been recorded in Greece, a number expected to increase, as more people become involved in birdwatching."

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Long enough. New enough. Neutral, well written. No copyright vios. Reliable inline citations throughout. The citations check out except for Citation 7 (IUCN Red List), which is a Wikipedia page, and doesn't specifically say anything about Greece or its environs. Hook is cited. QPQ done. Please fix Citation 7. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Hybernator: I don't know what you mean by "fix Citation 7". This is the form of citation used in many lists such as this one, where you will see it at Note 1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Madrasa and tomb of Alauddin Khilji

Madrasa of Alauddin Khilji
Madrasa of Alauddin Khilji

Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 10:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Doing...-Nizil (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: I have moved the page, gave assessments and done the QPQ. RRD (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: New, long enough, cited, neutral, no copyvio, image free licensed and would look ok at 100x100 px, QPQ done. The hook is not interesting enough and bit long. Can you propose another one or reword it?-Nizil (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah:
@Royroydeb: It is still long and bit confusing. I tweak it a little to make it more hooky. How is it? -Nizil (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: The fact that it is tomb of Alauddin Khalji and is the first such tomb to be built in a school in India is missing. RRD (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb:, its OK to not have king's name and first built in the hook. The hook should sound interesting and should lead reader to the article. So do you find ALTa more interesting and easy to understand?-Nizil (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 26[edit]

Hemothorax

  • ALT0... that menstrual periods can cause bleeding into the chest? Source: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological disorder, affecting 10-15% of women of reproductive age. It is defined by extrauterine growth of endometrial tissue, including endometrial glands and stroma. The ectopic tissue is typically located in the peritoneal cavity, most often in the pelvis, but endometriosis has been reported in nearly all body compartments. Although rarely involved, the thoracic cavity is the most frequent extra-abdominopelvic site of endometriosis. Thoracic endometriosis syndrome (TES) is the term used to refer to the various clinical and radiological manifestations resulting from the presence and cyclical changes of functional endometrial tissue in a thoracic structure (visceral or parietal pleura, lung parenchyma, airways, or diaphragm). Clinical manifestations vary during the menstrual cycle and are more likely to occur during menses, because of the hormonal responsiveness of ectopic endometrial tissue. TES includes five well-recognized clinical entities grouped into two forms, namely the pleural form with catamenial pneumothorax (CP), non-catamenial endometriosis-related pneumothorax (NCP), and catamenial haemothorax (CHt). Rousset 2014, PMID:24331768
  • ALT1... that during menstrual periods, tissue from the womb can bleed into the chest?
  • Comment: PeaBrainC was GA reviewer, Steve Mulch Civic Pro was GA nominator

Improved to Good Article status by Steve Mulch Civic (Pro) and PeaBrainC (talk). Self-nominated at 12:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment I'm not doing a review but I just wanted to comment that I think both ALT0 and ALT1 seem a bit too scary, because they don't mention endometriosis and someone might think that the bleeding could happen to any woman. Also, "tissue from the womb" sounds confusing to me, because the tissue is actually in the chest. -kyykaarme (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments kyykaarme. I've tried to make the hook as interesting and engaging as possible and have deliberately omitted technical terms like endometriosis or endometrial tissue. It may sound a little scary but hopefully that should encourage readers to look at the article and find out that it's not so scary after all.
In my opinion it fits the guidance in the Reviewing guide, specifically the example of hooks potentially being "A tease, giving only part of the relevant information". PeaBrainC (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that endometriosis is merely technical term. It is the cause of the bleeding into the chest and even with endometriosis it's very rare. My point about the scariness is that we should not be saying that menstruation can cause bleeding into the chest because it's not true. I don't understand what you mean by "it's not so scary after all". Basically the hook now says "women can bleed into the chest during their periods" and then the "answer" in the article is "if they have endometriosis and even then it's very rare". To me the hook is misleading. -kyykaarme (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Another comment: I support what kyykaarme said, - it sounds scary. Better say what it is, and yes, I'd not pipe but explain, and then perhaps say that in rare cases is can occur with endometriosis. Even I know what that is, so don't fear it will not be understood. I looked at the article for reviewing, but find much of it too technical for my level of English, sorry. Can you try not to "sandwich text between images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on April 27[edit]

Katherine Hughes (activist)

Created by Clovermoss (talk) and SkyGazer 512 (talk). Nominated by Clovermoss (talk) at 20:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC).


  • Symbol question.svg Almost everything seems good to go. Article is long enough, was created recently (moved into article space from drafting space), and is well-sourced. The hook is sourced and the correct length. Nominator is new and no QPQ required. The only possible issue is that the hook could be more interesting. Maybe this is a borderline case where the present hook would be enough. But I suspect the nominator too would like an interesting hook (they were discussing it on their talk page). This is their issue to resolve, but it occurs to me that perhaps they could do something that takes advantage of the similarities of the words "activist" and "archivist" (after all, DYK hook reviewing guidelines suggest unusual nicknames as an interesting hook, so why not other forms of wordplay?). [note: If active DYK editors or admins think the hook is sufficiently interesting, then I'd call it good to go now] --Presearch (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Checking the references, I think that with a bit judicious expansion of the content by Clovermoss, the following alternate hook (below) might well meet Presearch's suggestion for a more interesting hook. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 * ... that Canadian journalist Katherine Hughes became Alberta's first provincial archivist, but later became a political activist, fighting for Irish self-determination?  "In 1917 she resigned from her London post to dedicate herself to the cause of Irish freedom." Source: Mclaughlin, Robert (2013). Irish Canadian Conflict and the Struggle for Irish Independence, 1912-1915. University of Toronto Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-4426-1097-2. Retrieved 15 April 2019.

Articles created/expanded on April 28[edit]

Articles created/expanded on April 30[edit]

IM 67118

  • Comment: It would be nice to include a photograph of the tablet, but I have not been able to find any with an appropriate license.

Created by Will Orrick (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Will Orrick: This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ is needed. Please could you incorporate a date for Pythagoras' birth (with an inline citation) into the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bladimir Lugo

  • Comment: New article created on 26 April. This person is controversial during the Crisis in Venezuela.

Created by Cyfraw (talk) and Jamez42 (talk). Nominated by Cyfraw (talk) at 07:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 1[edit]

Louisville Sinking Fund Building

  • Comment: Saturday May 4 is the Kentucky Derby in Louisville KY, which usually gets an in the news spot that day. May be of related interest to this article.

Created by Charles Edward (talk). Self-nominated at 15:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg @Charles Edward: (AGF good pending QPQ) The article is new enough and long enough at 1770 characters, and I'm AGF on the hook source as it is offline. One suggestion is that all but two sentences start with the word "the", and more variety in beginning sentences would improve the way it reads; I've made some changes as well to this end. You also need a QPQ to continue. Raymie (t ? c) 03:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 2[edit]

Le Groupement (cycling team)

  • ... that the Le Groupement cycling team folded in mid-1995 amidst accusations that their sponsoring company ran a pyramid scheme? Source: "Other controversy surrounded the team because of their sponsors. The group behind the main sponsor was the European Association of Marketing Professionals which was said to have been nothing but a pyramid scheme." (Source)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, no image for this one...

Created by Zwerg Nase (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - I raised my concern about the source above, and can't see any easy replacements from a quick web search.
  • Interesting: Green tickY
  • Other problems: Red XN - I don't think it's necessary to add the date of disbanding to the hook, since it can have a nicer "punch" if shortened.

QPQ: Red XN - As you have 8 previous DYK credits, you need to complete a QPQ.
Overall: Symbol question.svg Interesting article, and I have taken the liberty of moving it to a title without disambiguation (as there is no conflicting use of that name). SounderBruce 04:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @SounderBruce: The nominator hasn't edited the article since your review, apart from adding a short description template to the article. They also appear not to have addressed the concerns or done a QPQ. I'm willing to donate a QPQ to resolve that issue, but then the problem would be on sourcing. I had left the nominator a message but without a response. Considering the circumstances, what can be done here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Sorry, I overlooked your message, it got swamped by the Signpost on my talk page... It's true that I have not yet found the time to resolve the issue, even though it's not that hard, I would just need to use the Millar biography even more. All I have to do is find the respective page numbers, which I could do tomorrow, if that is OK. Thank you for stepping in and reminding me that this was still ongoing, I had almost forgot... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 3[edit]

Hallo ü-Wagen

  • ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts, guests and listeners (pictured)? Source: [32]

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article was nominated within the 7-day requirement, it is adequately sourced, free of plagiarism, and AGF sourced to German sources. QPQ still required. The hook is okay but I think a more interesting fact in the article is the one about the host being called one of Germany's 100 Most Influential Women. Would it be okay for you to propose a hook based on that? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the above hook, "listeners" is somewhat confusing. The article refers to those on location as the "public" and those listening by radio as "listeners". Jmar67 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I've boldly moved the "(pictured)" to after the article subject, since it appears that the picture is referring to the van itself rather than the listeners. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not happy with that, and please make your own ALT(s) instead of changing something with my signature under it. Here's yours:
ALT1: ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van, pictured) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts, guests and listeners?
Formally, I haven't seen pictured in the same brackets as a translation, also how can you follow the rule to have the brackets italic for one but not the other? Content: the van is NOT pictured (compare image in the source), the program is, presenter talking to public or guests, - ok, I therefore move pictured:
ALT2: ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts and guests at the location (pictured), and of listeners?
How do you call people who come to a live radio talk? - Back to the first question: We had the "influential women" thingy already, on 7 May, still on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Those on location are the "live audience". How about
ALT3: ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts, guests, the live audience (pictured), and listeners?
Jmar67 (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Re deletion of "guests": The article refers to experts and invited guests. Seems OK to mention them. Jmar67 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, guests back. Can you help with the nom for Pütz, arts vs. art? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Going back to this nomination, I think there's potential with the hook fact (i.e. the part about the subject being a travelling radio show). However, I don't think ALT0 and its variants work out wording-wise. I'm not sure exactly how to reword it, but I think the best option would be to try to focus on the travelling part or even the van itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    What is the objection to the wording? I could suggest
ALT4: ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van), a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, featured experts, guests, the live audience (pictured), and listeners?
Jmar67 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The thing I had with the original hook is that it didn't exactly flow well: ALT4 sounds snappier. Talk shows though tend to all have "experts, guests, live audiences, and listeners", and I think it would be a lot catchier to focus on either the travelling aspect or the van itself. I don't think radio shows that take place on the road are that common, are they? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I was expecting Gerda to pick up on this. But my question now is: how valid is this nomination in the light of the similar DYK appearance here? Jmar67 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I always do it like that, avoiding double and triple hooks. She had a career beyond that show, the show lasted beyond her time, - different things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Als, no objection means consent. What it needs is a reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This just occurred to me:
ALT5: ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van), a weekly talk radio programme of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, was an audience participation (pictured) show on wheels?
Jmar67 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, in "participation (pictured) show", - the "show" comes as a surprise. How about this then:
ALT6: ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly radio talk show on wheels of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with audience participation (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT7: ... that Hallo ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a long-running weekly German radio talk show on wheels, with audience participation (pictured)?
The WDR ref has always irritated me. Jmar67 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I won't fight, but do Main page readers know German public radio? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Operation Crossfire Hurricane

  • ... that individuals associated with the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign were targeted by a Crossfire Hurricane? Source: Washington Post That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities New York Times Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016 [...] at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.

Converted from a redirect by Starship.paint (talk) and Shinealittlelight (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 01:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

Otherwise, this is a really bad idea as the focus is not on the late discovery of the code-name "Crossfire Hurricane", but on common knowledge about the Russia investigation (which is the common name for what was originally referred to by agents as Crossfire Hurricane). This can end up confusing people into thinking that they were two different investigations, and thus Wikipedia would be engaged in creating/furthering a fringe conspiracy theory. We shouldn't do that.
Create a new hook which focuses on the code-name, without getting into anything about the relation of the code-name to the investigation, as that is an unresolved discussion on the article's talk page.
This makes me think the article is now only two steps away from an AfD. Before it was three steps. I haven't done that yet because I'm hoping it can turn into a good article which collects into one place all the information about the Russia investigation which is spread around in different articles. If that doesn't happen, then the article has no right to exist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Might as well just have a little fun with it:
  • ALT3: ... that the Mueller Report was born in a crossfire hurricane? (Hope it's alll ... riiiiight ... nooow) Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Oh yes. Very nice. starship.paint (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yay, baby, yay! — JFG talk 21:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    Still, for exactitude, we should say ALT4 …that the Mueller probe was born in a crossfire hurricane? — JFG talk 21:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    Source: NPR Comey was leading the Justice Department's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. Mueller is now leading that investigation New York Times Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016 [...] at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane. starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    Oh yes to ALT4. Sorry Daniel! starship.paint (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please post on my talk page if you review this, or need my response. Also, note: Page has been moved to Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hu Peizhao

  • ... that when Hu Peizhao argued that capital investors receiving economic returns was reasonable allocation of production gains, he was sharply criticized by Marxists for justifying exploitation of labour? Source: Multiple Chinese sources in article. Unfortunately none of the English sources discussing his views on Google books allow preview.

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 01:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

What is Democracy?

  • ... that The Allegory of Good and Bad Government is a discussion point in What Is Democracy?? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that What Is Democracy? interviews people from barbers to philosophers? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Converted from a redirect by StudiesWorld (talk). Self-nominated at 20:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

  • I should note that this was my first DYK nom for QPQ review. PublicWorld (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pamela Nadell

Created by Cawhee (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and mostly referenced. Hooks are interesting and supported by supplied sources. QPQ not required for new nominator, no copyvio detected. However, the article needs more references. Multiple paragraphs in "Life and education" and "Role in public life" sections lack sources. -Zanhe (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 4[edit]

Sandy Schreier

  • ... that Sandy Schreier owns 15,000 couture clothing items that she never wears? Source: "Ms. Schreier, who is in her 70s, has been collecting since she was a teenager and now has an estimated 15,000 items, including gowns, bags and shoes, muffs, lingerie and even designer sketches. But there is a crucial difference between Ms. Schreier and other clotheshorses: She never wears her treasures, but keeps them in a warehouse near her house here in a suburb of Detroit, bringing them out only to lend to museums or to show designers." ([33])
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC).

  • ?Y Article is long enough (2291 characters), new enough (created 4 May, nominated 11 May), and article is within policy.
  • ?Y All hooks are short enough, supported by inline sourcing, and interesting. I've added links to Haute couture, as not everyone will know what couture clothing is. Ditto for Valentino & Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in ALT2.
  • ?N QPQ not yet done. @Edwardx and Philafrenzy: Please can one of you do a QPQ for this? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Overall, this nomination needs a QPQ and then is good to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agadzagadza

  • ... that Agadzagadza the trickster lizard is blamed as the cause of death in Bura mythology?
    • ALT1:... that Agadzagadza is a mythological trickster from Uganda who is responsible for bringing death to humankind?
      • ALT2:... that Agadzagadza is a mythological trickster from Nigeria who is responsible for bringing death to humankind?
        • ALT3:... that Agadzagadza the trickster lizard is blamed as the cause of death in Nigerian mythology?
  • Reviewed: I think I'm exempt from review, but please let me know if this isn't the case!

Created by You've got Koalatee (talk). Nominated by Gardneca (talk) at 06:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC).

Review

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - ALT1 fails as the article doesn't seem to mention Uganda. An issue with the primary hook is the reference to the "Bura". This isn't linked in the hook or article. Possible links include Bura people (which redirects to Kilba people) or Bura language (aka Bura/Pabir). I reckon we need to clarify this and the exact source which is supporting it.
This is my fault, I meant Nigeria not Uganda! Whoops. Linking to Bura people should work. Gardneca (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Symbol question.svg It's not clear to me whether the word Agadzagadza is the Bura/Pabir name for a lizard or whether it's the proper name of this particular trickster. I suppose it's a bit of both like Coyote.

I think you're right Gardneca (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent

Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent
Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent
  • ... that Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent (pictured) set a Guinness World Record with "Ting Tong"? Source: Not very many months later the pair of us were thundering across China’s Gobi desert in Ting Tong, our shockingly pink three-wheeled steed, heading in the general direction of England. In 98 days of tukking we covered 12,783 miles, two continents and 12 countries and survived an earthquake, several landslides and the odd lascivious Russian. We also set the Guinness World Record for the Longest Ever Journey by Auto-Rickshaw Source

Created by Roxedl (talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg There's a few issues here that would need to be addressed. The prose needs at least an extra 350 characters to make this long enough for DYK. One paragraph is mostly uncited, and that includes the mention of "Ting Tong" and the World Record. Most of the article is sourced to the subject's blog or book. I'm sure that what she writes is true, but claims like these need some reliable third-party sourcing, ideally perhaps something official from Guinness itself. The image would probably benefit from cropping but is perhaps misleading with the hook as it suggests the vehicle is Ting Tong, which it isn't. Spokoyni (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
In the meantime I did some additions and a ref for the record. Unfortunately I did not find any ref from Guinness, and the record must have been broken again shortly afterwardsby the actual record holder, a bit strange, I agree. Roxedl (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It wouldn't necessarily need to be from Guinness, but a statement like that really needs to be supported by a third party RS. Similarly the article is still too small, and large parts are unsourced, including the hook fact. And the article still leans too heavily on the subject's own blog and books to satisfy policies (I notice there has also been an issue with an COI editor). This is still some way from being acceptable for DYK - do you think you will be able to bring it in line? Spokoyni (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I added some more points. I assume RS means also BBC. Indeed I already doubted the Guinness world record, as – at least – another, the actual world record must have come in shortly afterwards and there are no more RS stating this (if not quite obviously from the lemma itself, the sum raised for Mind also varies from 37.000 GBP – BBC – to 60.000 GBP – RGS). The Guinness website in the past (in the Wayback Machine) does not help either. I picked some points from the COI editor, and there the mention "recipient of the 2019 Neville Shulman Challenge Award" puzzled me again, as this might be awarded in November …). The article has actually 5435 bytes, counting only the words in my local editor it is 2600 (sorry, I was absolutely unaware of this big difference) – the limit is 3500, right? Roxedl (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Besides the length problem, is there the possibility to change the DYK intro? Sorry, I am new to DYK, sorry for making a bit cumbersome the whole process. Roxedl (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on May 5[edit]

Saadat Ali Khan I

Saadat Ali Khan I
Saadat Ali Khan I
  • ... that Saadat Ali Khan I (pictured) ended the administrative authority of the landlords over their lands in Awadh of India?
  • Reviewed: soon

5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 16:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC).

Fatwa

  • ... that several sultans in Morocco and the Ottoman Empire were deposed by a fatwa? Source: "...several Ottoman and Moroccan sultans were deposed by fatwas" ("Fatwa", in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2013, p. 174)
    • ALT1:... that according to some scholars Ayatollah Khomeini's proclamation condemning Salman Rushdie to death was not a fatwa? Source: "...Ayatollah Khomeini (1902–89) issued a statement calling for the execution of author Salman Rushdie for insulting Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses. Although not strictly a fatwa, this death sentence was quickly treated as such" ("Fatwa", in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2013, p. 174); "There are some views that deny that this actually was a fatwa, as it did not follow the classical criteria of form or function for a fatwa." (Vik?r, Knut S. (2005). Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law. Oxford University Press, p. 142)
  • Reviewed: Exempt from QPQ - 1 DYK credit so far.

Improved to Good Article status by Eperoton (talk). Self-nominated at 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

Article is well sourced, and hooks are reasonably interesting. They do suggest that the reader knows what a fatwa is, before reading the article, however. QPQ not required. Hooks are cited. No copyvio. See below for more comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk ? contribs) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Definitely newly promoted enough and long enough. An Earwig check is a liiiiitle iffy. Specifically, "allowed a female convert to Islam to remain married to her non-Muslim husband, based in part on the existence of European laws and customs which guarantee women the freedom of religion" If the source is somehow freely licensed or public domain, then fine enough. Otherwise that's stretching the limits of fair use a bit too far. Similarly, (though Earwig doesn't pick this bit up) the opening sentence is nearly verbatim from the Princeton Encyclopedia source. The hook, is exactly verbatim from the Princeton Encyclopedia source. So these really need to be quoted or they need to be reworded. Fair use gives us leeway with attributed quotes, but not with unatributed ones. Additional manual spot checks only picked up one additional issue. A large portion of this was either copied to Fatwa from Mufti or visa versa. But I don't see on either article, either in edit summaries or on the talk page where the original is attributed. This is required by the CCBYSA license, and so it needs to be sorted out which is the original and which is the copy, so we can make sure we're in compliance with WP:COPYWITHIN.
User:Lee Vilenski it looks like we had an edit conflict, but you probably want to revisit your approval given the above. GMGtalk 14:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @GreenMeansGo: thanks for the closer review.

  • I have rephrased the passages underlined above.
  • For the definition, it's important to reflect the definitions found in the sources, which are themselves similar to each other. I think this one falls under: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing."
  • I was reluctant to paraphrase those few words in the hook because I feared introducing OR. For example, one could replace "deposed" by "forced to abdicate", but it doesn't quite mean the same thing. I feel this is also in the area of "limited number of ways to say the same thing". P.S. On closer inspection, how about this paraphrase of the hook?
  • I contributed all the text in both Fatwa and Mufti, so my edits are the appropriate attribution.

Let me know if you still have concerns. Eperoton (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Do you think we should gloss fatwa as "(nonbinding legal opinion)" or "(nonbinding legal opinion on a point of Islamic law)" in the hooks? Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't an opinion by definition not be legally binding? I think fatwa (legal opinion) makes sense, but It's not really something I understand entirely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk ? contribs) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Binding legal opinions do exist in some legal systems, but we can use the shorter gloss in the hook for brevity. Eperoton (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as COPYWITHIN, unless you are positive that there were no other contributors to the duplicated content, i.e., if they were both added at the same time, then we would still need attribution. But that's really too easy, just use a WP:DUMMYEDIT on whatever article was last and say "text from this article copied from that article".
Just to be safe, I'll see if we can't get a second opinion on whether the hook runs into close paraphrasing issues. Maybe I'm over thinking it. Never hurts to ask. GMGtalk 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thanks, second opinion on the hook would be good. Regarding attribution, the text of both articles either came out of my sandbox or was added by me to both articles at about the same time. I do include attributions in edit summaries when I copy text with other contributors. Eperoton (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No comment on the close paraphrasing issue, but terms like "fatwa" do not need to be defined in hooks, the hook is only there to tweak interest in a topic not to define terms, if we did the latter DYK would end up looking like a dictionary extract. People who don't know what a "fatwa" is and would like to know more get to click on the link, that's the whole point. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

  • I agree that there is some paraphrasing that is too close to the sources. Compare for example "A mufti's understanding of the query commonly depended on their grasp of local customs and colloquial expressions" with "Such comprehension frequently depended on the muftī??'s grasp of both local custom and colloquial expression". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you elaborate your concern, Nikkimaria? I can't quite connect it to WP:CLOP. Nothing in this sentence strikes me as a "creative expression", and as I far as I can tell, there's a limited number of ways of expressing this particular assertion without changing the meaning or using unnatural language. This is a general issue that's important for articles on contentious topics, where I tend to edit, so I want to clarify for the future. I normally try to rephrase and rearrange content as much as the subject permits, and alternate statements drawing on different sources, but no so much as to introduce OR. CLOP, and particularly WP:LIMITED, seems to be formulated in a reasonably flexible way that permits this approach. Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. So, for example, I now rewrote this as "A mufti's understanding of the query commonly depended on their familiarity with local customs and colloquialisms", which would minimize Earwig-style issues. Does that address your concern, or do you consider any statement that conveys the meaning of a statement from the source with a similar syntactic structure to be a CLOP violation, regardless of whether it can be naturally expressed otherwise? Eperoton (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
NOCREATIVE applies to things like "X was born on 1 January 1900", when there truly is no originality in the phrasing; that's not the case with the example I've cited. If you truly cannot find an adequate way to represent such a phrase, you can always quote it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so did the rephrased version address this particular concern? Eperoton (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikkimaria and Gatoclass for taking a look. I'll be out of town for the next several weeks, so I'll defer to your judgement. GMGtalk 23:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of Life (album)

Improved to Good Article status by Chihciboy (talk). Self-nominated at 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 7[edit]

Florence Fang

The Flintstone House, 2007
The Flintstone House, 2007
  • ... that Florence Fang is being sued for causing a public nuisance with her Flintstones-themed house (pictured)? Source: "Florence Fang's colorful home is a landmark for many in California's Bay Area. But the town of Hillsborough is suing her, declaring the property a ‘public nuisance’" ([34])
    • ALT1:... that ...?
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, policy compliant. Hook is of interest and is appropriate length. Picture is also policy compliant. No QPQ done as of this review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a question: while I think the hook is catchy and hooky, doesn't it count as a BLP violation? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the BLP issues for ALT0 and think it has more appeal than Alt1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to ask for a second opinion on this then. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree that the original hook is a bad idea from a BLP perspective. Rule 4 states "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Given that Fang is countersuing for violation of "her First Amendment rights, discrimination and emotional distress" makes me think this is not an issue to splash on the mainpage. Spokoyni (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I would argue that the dispute with Hillsborough could be phrased in a more neutral manner and is of interest than the buying of dinosaurs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt2 ... that Florence Fang lives in The Flintstone House (pictured)? Spokoyni (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Considering the issues with ALT0, ALT1 and ALT2 are probably our best options here. Both hooks are cited inline and verified, though I have a slight preference for ALT2. Should be good to go once the QPQ is done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I get that there's the desire to have the picture but think that lacks pizzazz. I would suggest ALT3 Florence Fang was the first Asian American owner of a major daily newspaper? source (also in the article but I think this one is a stronger source). Of course this isn't going anywhere until there is a QPQ. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily because of the picture, I mean ALT2 can work even without it. It would probably interest readers that someone lives in a house that is based on The Flintstones. ALT3 is also nice (and for interest of reviewing, also meets DYK hook requirements), and could work out as an alternative if in case ALT2 doesn't work out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It would be a huge waste not to use a Flinstones hook and the picture. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
We could try a compromise hook that combines both hook facts, though I'm not sure if it would fly Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC):
ALT4 ... that Florence Fang, who was the first Asian-American owner of a major daily paper, lives in The Flintstone House (pictured)?
I'm happy with the compromise hook above, but perhaps "major US daily paper" might be better for a global audience? Edwardx (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
What about keeping it simple with Alt1 and Alt2? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I personally have no problems with ALT1 and ALT2 and in fact ALT2 is my preferred hook, but Barkeep49 has objected to the Flinstones house mention as "lacking pizzaz". And I don't really understand why you're against ALT4 when it's a compromise that highlights both an interesting part of her life and the house she lives in. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt4 is a bit clunky, joining two unrelated things just for the sake of a compromise that isn't needed when there are already good hooks that readers will love. We have a Flinstones themed house with a picture, it's clicking gold. The newspaper claim is weak by comparison and liable to be challenged for definition as "firsts" often are, e.g. "Asian-American", "major", U.S. centric, etc. Can you tick Alt1 and Alt2? Philafrenzy (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
If you really want ALT1 or ALT2 to run, you'll need to convince Barkeep49. They're the ones with the objection, not me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49 Philafrenzy (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I still think ALT 1 is weak but I'm not willing to necessarily throw my body in front of it. My bigger question is why are we having all this discussion when there has been no QPQ done? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 8[edit]

Bête

The suit of Spades in Bête follows the unusual ranking used in écarté
The suit of Spades in Bête follows the unusual ranking used in écarté
  • ... that the historical French pastime of la Bête, originally called l'Homme, was the first card game to use the concept of bidding?
    Source: "The adoption of bidding into Triomphe occurred during the 17th century to produce a game called at first l'Homme ("Man") and subsequently la Bête (German Labet, Dutch LaBate, English Beast). The former title shows its origin to lie with the 16th-century Spanish game of Hombre (English and French Ombre)." ( at www.parlettgames.uk.)

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 06:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment. I've rewritten the hook to align better with Parlett's actual description. Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough, the article is neutral and the image is properly licensed. However, the hook states that the game has its origin in Ombre while the article only states that it may have done so. Another problem is that the sentence "The adoption of bidding into Triomphe occurred during the 17th century to produce a game called at first l'Homme ("Man") and subsequently la Bête (German Labet, Dutch LaBate, English Beast)." appears to be identical to a sentence in this source. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on May 9[edit]

Gord Kirke

Created by Flibirigit (talk) and HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Nominated by Flibirigit (talk) at 22:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

Nujeen Mustafa

  • ... that Nujeen Mustafa, a teenage Syrian refugee with cerebral palsy, traveled 3,500 miles (5,600 km) in a wheelchair to seek asylum in Germany?
  • Source 1: On her journey from Syria to Germany, Nujeen travelled over 3,500 miles, all in a wheelchair ... One of the things people don’t realize about refugees is that it’s expensive doing this trip. It cost them about 6,000 Euros ... Born with cerebral palsy, Nujeen’s only connection to the wider world ...[35]
  • Source 2: She is an incredible eighteen year-old who, at just sixteen, made the 3,500-mile journey from Syria to Germany in a steel wheelchair. Nujeen was born with cerebal palsy[36]
  • Source 3: “It was surreal.” That’s how 20-year-old Nujeen Mustafa described the experience Wednesday of being the first person with a disability to brief the United Nations Security Council in New York.[37]

Moved to mainspace by GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) and GreenMeansGo (talk). Nominated by GreenMeansGo (talk) at 12:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Reviewing. WBGconverse 06:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW, I'm supposed to be travelling extensively over the next month or so starting this weekend. So if there are any issues that need fixed and I'm not super quick to respond, just be patient with me. GMGtalk 16:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ernst Christoph Dressler

  • ... that Ludwig van Beethoven's earliest published work consisted of nine variations on a march by Ernst Christoph Dressler? Source: "Owing to a lack of documentary evidence concerning Beethoven's compositional activities before 1782, it is particularly difficult to assess the extent of his abilities prior to the publication of his first composition, 'Nine Variations on a March by Ernst Christoph Dressler', WoO 63." Gary E. McPherson, Musical Prodigies
  • Reviewed: Exempt, as I have fewer than five DYK credits

Created by Scolaire (talk). Self-nominated at 10:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC).

Ready to review later. Can we say a bit about him, not only Beethoven? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg Thank you for the ALTs, better. But first to the article. Interesting facts, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. Please tell me why the article name is Dressler, while one source calls him Dre?ler, and another the family Dresler, and I see Dressler nowhere? How about using bmlo and Kutsch? Next: can you structure the article a bit more? History - writings - compositions - the Beethoven piece. That he was a tenor comes late, should be in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The article as of now has six refs. Of the four German refs, two use Dressler and two Dre?ler. The English-language one uses Dressler, while the French one, for whatever reason, uses Dresler. That's a clear majority for Dressler (your bmlo uses "Dressler (Dre?ler)"). But actually the reason it's there is because a page I was reading had "Ernst Christoph Dressler" as a red link, and I decided it was worth a short article.
I don't see myself doing any further work on the article. Classical music is not my forte, and especially not opera. I created the article, as I say, because I thought he deserved one, and I nominated it for DYK in the hope that someone like you would notice it and improve it. Thank you for your comments. I've added "tenor" to the lead Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, understand. If I do too much I can't aprove (my then own work), - I hope you understand my little dilemma. I'll see what we can do. A shame he has nothing in German - be proud! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
There's no hurry. It'll be rejected or it'll appear; then you'll be free to do what you like with it. Yes, I was amazed that there was a Catalan and an Italian article, but not a German one. Scolaire (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Fine, I added the two sources and added a few bits, not much, but enough to make me uneasy about also approving it. I am sure soemone will do that eventually ;)
ALT3: ... that Ernst Christoph Dressler, an 18th-century operatic tenor, violinist, composer and music theorist, composed a march on which Beethoven based his earliest published work?
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be more than happy with ALT3. Scolaire (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 10[edit]

Articles created/expanded on May 11[edit]

Kainji National Park

Hippo Lake in Kainji National Park
Hippo Lake in Kainji National Park
  • ... that among the wetland animals in Kainji National Park are two species of crocodile, four of turtle, the African manatee, the hippopotamus and the clawless otter? Source: "four species of Chelonia (turtles), Squamata (lizards), with an abundance of Nile monitors and Bosc's monitor lizards as well as two species of crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus), and (C. cataphractus), over twelve species of amphibians including two species of toads, sixty-two species of mammals, which include those associated with aquatic systems such as the hippopotamus, manatee and claw-less otter."

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 18:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Doing... starting review for DYK nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


Hook eligiblity:

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

Overall: Symbol question.svg Article prose was expanded fivefold and nominated within the proper timeframe. Length and sourcing are adequate. Article is neutral in tone and no plagiarism detected. The photo used is properly licensed and clear. QPQ has been completed. The hook is interesting, however I do not see four species of turtles mentioned in the Fauna section, nor the clawless otter. Flibirigit (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I had a brief look at this article earlier, didn't finish a full review quick enough, but I found it strange an accommodation website (Accomodation Direct) was being used as a source. Why? – Teratix ? 03:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Peruna (patent medicine)

Created/expanded by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article meets DYK requirements, hook facts are cited inline, QPQ done. I think the first hook probably appeals best to a general audience. However, ALT0's citation comes not in the sentence that discusses it, but the one after; DYK rules require the actual hook fact sentence to have the relevant inline citation. In addition, Earwigs detects a large overlap with this page, which in turn appears to be a copy of our article on Adams. Both issues need to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details. In any case, it feels that the similarities are too close for comfort, especially since I don't think this article is a split from Adams's article; this would have been more acceptable if the latter was the case Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 12[edit]

Roy J. Snell

Created/expanded by EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk). Self-nominated at 10:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg A few issues need to be fixed here. Readable prose is just under the line at 1,471 characters, it needs a minimum of 1,500. The hook fact sentence is not cited, and the only cite source for that paragraph does not contain the fact. It does appear in another source used in the article, so that would need need citing directly, especially as "the great sum of $6.24" is a direct quote. Another short paragraph is uncited. No apparent copyvio, only trigger is the list of book titles. QPQ-exempt as from what I can tell you have less than five DYK credits. The hook I think passes muster as being broadly interesting. Once the issues are fixed, this should be ready for promotion. Spokoyni (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ravindra Dave

Created by Nizil Shah (talk) and Coderzombie (talk). Nominated by Nizil Shah (talk) at 06:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Nice article. Will opt for Hook 2 but prior to that, the article needs a copy-edit. WBGconverse 09:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 13[edit]

Ali Eisami

Ali Eisame, from S. Koelle's grammar
Ali Eisame, from S. Koelle's grammar

Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 01:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

All the Ways

Daryl Sabara
Daryl Sabara

Created by HeatherLeigh611 (talk). Nominated by MaranoFan (talk) at 12:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

KPPC (AM)

  • ... that the first and last programs on radio station KPPC were services of the Pasadena Presbyterian Church? Source — I don't particularly like using pieces like these for hooks, but the 1924 newspaper article cited therein isn't available in newspapers.com, and it's the only source for the church service broadcasts in the summer of 1996, even after the station had ended all other broadcasts.
  • Reviewed: Golden State Killer
  • Comment: This was a new article created as part of the merger of KPPC (defunct) into KROQ-FM. The previous article mostly talked about the FM and had little information about the AM station.

Created by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 04:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

  • @Narutolovehinata5: I realize I could have emphasized the continuity/longevity of these broadcasts better... Raymie (t ? c) 02:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT0a: that the first and last programs on radio station KPPC were services of the Pasadena Presbyterian Church, which were aired each Sunday for 72 years?
Sounds a lot better. I'll follow up with the full review soon. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 14[edit]

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

  • ... that U.S. states are immune from private suits against them in courts of other states without their consent per this recent Supreme Court ruling? Source: "The issue in Monday’s 5-to-4 ruling was one of limited impact: whether states have sovereign immunity from private lawsuits in the courts of other states. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to such immunity, although states are free to extend it to one another and often do. But the court’s conservative majority overruled that decision" [40]

Created by MrClog (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

Melissa Ede

Created by Raintheone (talk). Self-nominated at 07:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Claiming for review, with a tentative preference for the first hook. However, I'd suggest wikifying it or at the very least linking to scratch cards and making it clear that we're talking about British Pounds here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have changed the original hook to include a link to scratchcards and made it clear it was British pounds.Rain the 1 10:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Is that okay?Rain the 1 18:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it should. ALT1 and ALT3 are pretty good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Okay, giving this a review now. Article meets hook and DYK requirements, a QPQ has been done, and the article is free of close paraphrasing. There is a minor typo in the article: "her funeral will take place of" instead of "her funeral will take place on". ALT1 seems too mean-spirited, so I am only approving the original hook and ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Claude Cadart

Created by Zanhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg "He was one of the first European intellectuals to criticize Mao Zedong's political campaigns." This sentence is unsourced. Otherwise it seems that there is no problem with the article. RRD (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Royroydeb: Thanks for your review. I've now added supporting refs to the lead. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Fannie Bourke

  • ... that silent film actress Fannie Bourke ran a 500-seat "votes for women" movie theatre named The Princess in New Rochelle, New York? Source: "She is now running a 'votes for women' movie theatre in New Rochelle, N.Y... she has worked the Princess up from a house about to be closed to one in which the 500 seats are filled every evening." (page 438)

Created by Nonmodernist (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

Marion Underwood

Created by QuakerSquirrel (talk). Self-nominated at 18:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

Carl H. Lindroth

  • ... that the Swedish entomologist Carl H. Lindroth (1905–1979) wrote a children's book Myran Emma (1948) which was adapted into a short animated film in 1989? [41][42]
    • ALT1:... that the Swedish entomologist Carl H. Lindroth (1905–1979) suggested that nearly 43 species of North American ground beetles were introduced from Europe through ship ballast? Lindroth, C. H. (1968). Distribution and Distributional Centers of North Atlantic Insects. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 14(2):91–95. doi:10.1093/besa/14.2.91

Created by Shyamal (talk). Self-nominated at 05:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg I did a little copyedit of the article. Newly created article, over 1500 characters, cited and interesting hook, article follows all guidelines. QPQ is due. RRD (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
A bit of newbie at DYK, I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/De novo gene birth. Hope that solves the QPQ question. Shyamal (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 15[edit]

List of quadrangles on Mars

Topographical map of Argyre quadrangle on Mars
Topographical map of Argyre quadrangle on Mars

5x expanded by Bryanrutherford0 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

Erik Werba

5x expanded by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 20:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, I don't think the hook appeals to a broad audience. It requires knowledge of names that are not well-known outside of opera circles, and there's nothing else in the hook that would catch the attention of those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Looking at the article, I regret to say that I have not been able to find anything that could interest a wide audience. If you can find some more information about his life or career that could raise interest, please do it so that a new, more appealing hook can be proposed. But right now, the article and hook are not looking like DYK material. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. We could end the hook at "singers". It's quite unusual that a pianist is not known for solo work but for accompaniment. All the rest is extra for those who want to know a little more, the singers have links (and should get known if they aren't already), and how teaching for more than 40 years - which means shaping the playing of more than a generation - isn't interesting, is beyond me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bandos (horse)

  • ... that Bandos was the sire of over 129 horses, 3 of which went on to become Derby winners?

Created by Horsegeek (talk). Self-nominated at 00:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC).

  • I suggest proposing new hooks as I don't think either appeals to a broad audience. The first seems too niche and I think only horse racing fans might appreciate it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It still feels very niche and doesn't appeal to non horse enthusiasts. Can you try proposing something with broader appeal? The reference to a "Queen of Poland" or the number of the horses he foaled might work better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5 I tweaked the first hook to say how many horses he foaled, would that work better? Can’t really think of any other interesting facts. Horsegeek(talk) 02:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the first hook is probably the best bet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 16[edit]

Charles S. Bryan

Charles S. Bryan
Charles S. Bryan
  • ... that Charles S. Bryan (pictured) and Bill Stone worked out how to avoid toxic doses of penicillin in people with kidney failure?
    • ALT1:... that ...?

Created by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 22:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

Mario Pouliot

Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment, I will be updating the article and this nomination in the next couple days with results from the 2019 Memorial Cup. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
New hook proposed below. Flibirigit (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

W?chter (Anatol)

W?chter der Goitzsche
W?chter der Goitzsche
  • ... that policeman and artist Anatol created outdoor iron W?chter, a group of figures watching over the environment (pictured), and one as a memorial to police officers killed in the line of duty? Source: several
  • Reviewed: New York City Board of Aldermen
  • Comment: I wrote this article in defiance. The artist recently died, but proceedings to get the article ready for Recent deaths ITN took too long. This is in memory of a great person who deserves more attention. I wish I had an image of the latter sculpture, then I'd happily focus on that one. - I don't know how to handle that in German, W?chter is the same singular and plural, while in English it's Guard(s), plural for the first, singular for the second. - David, I think the image would be better cropped in this size, do you agree? - asap please
  • Gerda:Yes, I agree. I've cropped the image. —David Levy 00:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg An interesting article that is new enough, long enough and fully cited. My only minor comment is that the word Landschaft has been translated in the hook as "environment" which these days tends to refer to the abstract notion of the wider world we live in viewed from a 'green' perspective (Umwelt), whereas I think in the article cited it just means the statues are watching over the local countryside. So I'd use "countryside" rather than "environment". That said, I realise the terrain is a former open cast, brown coal mine, so you may tell me there is a green angle. In which case, maybe "local environment" may be clearer to avoid thinking they're watching over environmental concerns in general. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I think there's a "green" angle to the statues, at a site which was industrial before and returned to nature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
In which case, could we add "local" before environment to make it clear. Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that policeman and artist Anatol created outdoor iron W?chter, a group of figures watching over the local environment (pictured), and one as a memorial to police officers killed in the line of duty?
  • ALT1 seems off: "created outdoor iron"? I actually prefer the original hook's wording, but if the word "environment" is too vague then perhaps going with "countryside" may be better than "local environment". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    The idea is guarding against negative environmental change:
    ALT2: ... that policeman and artist Anatol created outdoor iron W?chter, a group of figures guarding the local environment (pictured) and one as a memorial to police officers killed in the line of duty?
    Jmar67 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The "outdoor iron" wording still feels strange to me. Why not "an outdoor group of iron figures"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The W?chter link needs to be preserved as a DYK requirement, does it not? We are talking about two separate outdoor installations, the group pictured here and a single figure elsewhere as a police memorial. See also the article lead, which uses "outdoor iron sculptures". I think the current wording is clear. What would be your full suggestion? Jmar67 (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The wording I had in mind was over 200 characters so it might not have worked out. I don't have much problems with the hook itself or the groupings, it's really the "created outdoor iron" that sounds weird to me. Would "the outdoor iron sculpture series" work instead? It would reflect the wording used in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that policeman and artist Anatol created the outdoor iron sculpture series W?chter, including a group guarding the environment (pictured) and a memorial to fallen police officers? Jmar67 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds much better. Letting Gerda decide if she likes it or not. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the offers. Always learning: can you say "fallen officers"? (Because in German, you could the equivalent of fallen soldiers, but no other "professions".) If yes, then fine. Someone requested "local" before environment. I'm travelling, and have no time to check it all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
"Fallen police officers" seems to be a fairly common expression in English, so that's fine. I'd put a comma after series as, grammatically, that seems right. But it's not a 'biggie'. Bermicourt (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

No comma (W?chter defines series). Would be different with "an outdoor". Also, removed "local" because I view "environment" as general ("Umwelt") in this case. Jmar67 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 17[edit]

Scanning Kelvin Probe

  • ... that Scanning Kelvin Probe, a technique based on Lord Kelvin's work, has been used to investigate fingerprints and meteorites?
    • ALT1:... that work presented by Lord Kelvin is essential to Scanning Kelvin Probe, which is still used today?

Created by Sraisac (talk). Self-nominated at 16:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

Kyle Garlick

Kyle Garlick
Kyle Garlick
  • Reviewed: IOU

Created by Muboshgu (talk) and Spanneraol (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 18:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

QPQ: ????
Overall: Symbol question.svg QPQ still pending, hook reasonable interesting. Let me know once you have reviewed something and I'll pass this DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Eduardo A. Roca

Eduardo A. Roca
Eduardo A. Roca

Created by LLcentury (talk). Self-nominated at 02:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, reliably sourced, no copyvios, etc. Good job!--N? 12:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: MaranoFan, while it's not a serious copyvio problem, this is a page translated without attribution from Spanish Wikipedia; either LLcentury or I will fix that, but it's a copyvio fail until it's been done. Also Genealogía Familiar is – in my opinion – nothing like a reliable source by our standards, and needs to be replaced with something much better (changing the hook too if that turns out to be necessary). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Done with Genealogia Familiar, except for the translate template which I still don't understand. Thanks and best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC) @Justlettersandnumbers:, Hi friend, I've already re-supported his law firm source with Página 12, a very trustworthy Argentine newspaper which supports the information taken from his law firm website, though Página 12 warns that "according to". Hope this contributes. :) --LLcentury (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Deferring to a new reviewer due to my unfamiliarity with this subject. Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for noticing and correcting my lack of judgement in this case.—N? 04:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan , Hi friend!, please check my talk page, it's been reviewed again and apparently approved. :) Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Justlettersandnumbers Hi friend, just a clarification, I cited three books to verify his Curriculum Vitae, but I was told only one source is needed and the rest go to "Bibliography". Do you agree? Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury You asked at the talk page how long it takes to review for a second time. It depends on many things. For me, when I come here, what stands out to me first is that the hook is sourced to genealogiafamilar.net, which is likely crowdsourced and therefore not a reliable source. It makes me question all the sourcing for the article, unfortunately, which tells me that reviewing this is going to be a big job. I'm sorry, but I think you should probably go back to the article and check all your sources to make sure they're reliable. You can find help at WP:RSN. If you're no longer relying on that source, strike out the source and provide the new one. valereee (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Valereee - Sorry but I already removed Genealogia Familiar last week and I tried to cite books but was told that books go to Bibliography. Please, reach an agreement among yourselves because you confuse me, with all due respect I say that. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
LLcentury, no worries, I know it's frustrating to try to figure out everything. First, let's strike out the source you used for the first hook. I'm going to do that for you so you can see how it's done. Then let's add the new source. What we're looking for is ideally a link to the source, plus a quote from that source that supports your hook. valereee (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee - I understood it now, sorry, changed the source to the hook. Please check it, it's in Spanish if need translation ask me. --LLcentury (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that source supports the part of your hook that says the two men are related, but I don't see it saying he was there for the whole Falklands war, and it looks like he was only ambassador for a very short time, so we'll need to support that too. Also we don't generally delete things -- we strike them out, so people can follow the conversation more easily. I've fixed that. Okay, now we should talk about the hook. It's a little bland. How would you feel about ... that Argentina's ambassador to the UN during the Falklands War, Eduardo A. Roca, was the grand-nephew of former Argentinian president Julio Argentino Roca? --valereee (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, Done dear friend, added the two sources to support full hook, please choose whatever form of hook but I would like to see Falklands/Malvinas War instead of only "Falklands War", but that's up to you. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
When you open the editing box, if you'll look at the number of colons in front of the comment you're replying to and add one more it will indent correctly. If you look at this one and yours above, you'll see I've got one more colon that is in front of yours (I fixed it.) This helps other editors see who is replying to whom. Re: Falklands/Malvinas vs Falklands War, I'm not getting into anything that sounds like it might be an ongoing argument among different points of view, lol! Wikipedia redirects Falklands/Malvinas War to Falklands War. You can certainly give it a go, but it might be a fight you don't want to get into here at DYK. :D The second source just says he was ambassador in 1982, but that the one before him and after him were also ambassadors that same year, so it doesn't actually support him being ambassador during the weeks of the war. It's quite likely to be challenged, so you're going to want to find a source with exact dates that puts him firmly in the position during those ten or whatever weeks. --valereee (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, think clarified now, I am so sorry for so much mess. --LLcentury (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
LLcentury, no worries, it's a pretty steep learning curve here at WP! Okay, so I'm going to format the new hook. We call the original hook ALT0, and after that we start numbering them so we can discuss them without confusion.
Perfect!, I accept that hook! --LLcentury (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Looking for a new review for ALT1. --valereee (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • ALT1 gives too much weight to WP:INHERITED. I don't think this familial relationship belongs in the lead, either. Isn't there something to say about the subject himself? Some of the material he said in speeches at the UN could be used for a hook. I have tagged one word for clarification (see hidden note there). Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah Hi Yoninah!, first, I've clarified what needed to be clarified in the article. And this is my proposed hook:

  • ALT2: ... that Argentina's Ambassador to the UN during the Falklands/Malvinas War, Eduardo A. Roca, accused the United Kingdom of aggression at the time of the Invasion to the islands? (Sorry my English). --LLcentury (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have formatted your alt. Here is a smoother rendition of it which meets DYK's guidelines for putting the subject in the front of the hook:
  • ALT2a: ... that Eduardo A. Roca, Argentina's permanent representative to the United Nations during the Falklands War, accused the United Kingdom of aggression at the time of the invasion to the islands?
  • But I don't understand the hook. Argentina invaded the islands and then Britain did, according to our Falklands War article. If Roca is Argentina's representative, of course he's going to accuse the UK of aggression. Perhaps a little bit more will make this hooky:
  • ALT3: ... that Eduardo A. Roca, Argentina's permanent representative to the United Nations during the Falklands War, accused the UK of aggression and condemned the US for supporting it?
  • Alternately, there's a good hook hiding in this sentence: In a speech in March 1968, Roca spoke of "subversive activity," instead of possible external enemies. -- but it needs to be made clearer in the article what you're talking about.
  • Please see how I edited your article. He was not the ambassador to the UN, but a permanent representative, as per the UN page. I tried to format the bald URLs, but cannot find the correct URL for footnote 11; right now it is directing to a general Google Books page. Footnote 6 also needs to be formatted in full with the title of the book, author, isbn, etc. I have also tagged one paragraph for lacking any citations, per Rule D2. While the article is start-class for DYK, it does not mention his education or what he did after his UN appointment. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Yoninah! Thanks for your immense help, I've added citation where needed and you are free to remove the third point of "Bibliography" since that "book" or "bulletin" has no ISBN.
  • ALT4: ... that during the Falklands War, then Argentine Permanent Representative to the UN expressed concerns of "internal subversive activity" regarding the conflict?
  • Check it please. Thanks again for your patience and kindness. --LLcentury (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just leaving a comment here. I know Wikipedia is not censored and all, but considering the remaining tensions with regards to the Falklands, I'm not sure if a hook focusing on that conflict is a good idea. As a backup, perhaps another hook discussing a different aspect of his life can be proposed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 Hi!, at least here in Argentina, it's been long overcome, current President Macri had an excellent meeting with now renounced British PM May and the people here love UK culture. Don't know what tensions are you referring to. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on May 18[edit]

Rolf Riehm

  • ... that the oboist and composer Rolf Riehm taught music theory in Frankfurt from 1974 to 2000, and wrote an opera, Sirenen, for a 2014 premiere at the Oper Frankfurt? Source: several
  • Reviewed: Wildlife of Senegal
  • Comment: best on 15 June, his birthday. - I don't want to name the institurion where he taught because it changed name during the long time.

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Discography and most of the works lack inline citation. RRD (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Will do, but just returned from travelling, and at least 2 nominations need me before this one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: OK, I would wait. RRD (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
RRD, I managed to reduce the compositions to (mostly) what the Academy of the Arts shows, and sourced all recordings. The most recent compositions that are not recorded still lack a ref, but I'm exhausted ;) - more patience needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
RRD, I added refs now to later works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Leslie Leve

  • ... that Leslie Leve found that positive parenting by adoptive parents can reduce children's callous behaviors, which can be inherited from birth parents? Source: "The team found that antisocial behavior in the biological mother predicted CU behaviors in their children who were adopted into homes as infants. This was despite the biological mothers having limited or no contact with the children, indicating that CU behaviors were inherited. However, the team also found that high levels of positive reinforcement by adoptive mothers helped to mitigate CU behaviors in their adopted children." (link)

Moved to mainspace by Squirrel1847 (talk). Nominated by QuakerSquirrel (talk) at 19:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

Kine Beate Bj?rn?s

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

Tarzan of Manisa

Tarzan Heykeli ("the statue of Tarzan"), statue of Ahmet Bedevi in Manisa
Tarzan Heykeli ("the statue of Tarzan"), statue of Ahmet Bedevi in Manisa
  • ... that the Tarzan of Manisa (statue pictured) is considered by some as the first Turkish environmentalist? Source: "Known by some as the “first environmentalist of Turkey,” Bedevi..." ([46])
    • ALT1:... that the Tarzan of Manisa (statue pictured) planted thousands of trees on the Spil Da?? above Manisa, in Turkey? Source: "the environmentalist Ahmet Bedevi, who is legendary for his work in the first half of the last century planting thousands of trees on Mount Spil, or Mount Sipylus in Manisa" ([47])

Created by Alessandro57 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment that image is pretty hard to see at that size. The ducks are nice, but maybe a crop on the statue? --valereee (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Naomi Koshi

  • ... that Naomi Koshi is the youngest woman ever elected mayor of a Japanese city? Source: "In 2012, Naomi Koshi became the youngest woman to be elected mayor of a Japanese city." [48]
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • Reviewed: 4th DYK nom, QPQ exempt

Created by Mcampany (talk). Nominated by StudiesWorld (talk) at 09:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. I am not seeing "Ibaraki" or "New York State Bar" in the sources given. I also note that "She received no assistance from the government" is a little ambiguous about what it refers to. Article is neutral and I am not seeing copyvio or plagiarism concerns. Is weforum a good enough source for the hook claim?
Doing some looking, I found reference to the NYSB and Ibakara in unreliable sources, so it would probably be best to cut it. I imagine it was translated from Japanese where it is cited to her personal website. I think that the World Economic Forum should be considered a reliable source. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 19[edit]

Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd

  • ... that an X Factor winner recorded a cover version of the song "Have I Ever Said", which was itself a Dutch-language cover based on the song "Have I Told You Lately"? Udo Mechels X-Factor winner: AllMusic; Udo's cover of Dutch band Clouseau's song "Have I Ever Said"/"Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd": Hung Medien; Clouseau's song is a cover of "Have I Told You Lately" by Van Morrison: Alllmusic; specific statement (in Dutch) that "Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd" is a cover of the Van Morrison song: Radio2
    • ALT1:... that the song " Have I Ever Said "—a Dutch-language cover version based on the song "Have I Told You Lately"—was itself made into a cover version by an X Factor winner?
  • Comment: There is a request to merge the article, but I wanted to place this request in case the merge request fails.

Created by Big universe (talk). Self-nominated at 04:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC).

The California Field Atlas, Obi Kaufmann

Improved to Good Article status by Brandt Luke Zorn (talk). Self-nominated at 22:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

Monique Scheier-Schneider

Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 21:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 20[edit]

Jew with a coin, Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, "Never Again" Association, Rafa? Pankowski

Jew with a coin figurines on sale in Polańczyk
Jew with a coin figurines on sale in Polańczyk
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2019–20 RFU Championship
  • Comment: I have a bunch of articles here, but the really-really hooky and cool one is Jew with a coin. Reviewer - you have an important job - I've listed many possible hooks - please convey your opinions on which hook (or hooks) are the hookiest (or in this case, convey a WTF moment). If we have an additional article in the hook (other than Jew with a coin) that's a bonus - but the main-main thing I want here is hookiness.

Created by Icewhiz (talk), Piotrus (talk), 92.3.3.67 (talk), Drmies (talk), E.M.Gregory (talk), MyMoloboaccount (talk), Kayteigh (talk), Xx236 (talk), Jpbowen (talk), and Slatersteven (talk). Nominated by Icewhiz (talk) at 08:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Date, size, copyvio spotcheck, QCQ ok. Concern #1: the article is not stable yet, a few days may be needed for some tug of wars/reverts/etc. do die down; there's also a NPOV template at the top of the article, this needs to be removed and not challenged for the DYK to be stable for main page. (Ping me if you think this has happened and I'll rereview this). Concern #2. Hooks are interesting, but 1) first one - I don't think qualifier "many" is correct, per my comment on nom's talk page. 2) ok, but I'd add 'some', I don't think it's a custom for majority of them 3) ok but just one minor event, a bit boring 4) I like it, through perhaps a bit too technical for a casual reader 4) my favorite 5) interesting, but I'd rather go with 4 that attribute a single scholar opinion that may not be universally shared. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note you are co-named as an author - you should not be reviewing. These are in 18% of around 10 million homes = many. If you have a better word - go ahead and suggest. There is a NPOV tag only on Pankowski, which is only relevant for one hook (ALT2) - the others should be good.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll just note that neither Pankowski nor the Association seem to be linked in the hook, they probably should have stand-alone and separate DYK nominations and hooks. For what's it worth, I think the 'jew with the coin' article is neutral right now, but whether it is stable, I am unsure. The next reviewer will check on that anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svgObject-Joannas Tokarska-Bakirs claims have been widely rejected by others up to the point of her being openly ridiculed by other scholars in this field[52]. Right now her claims are shown as valid and serious.Just one of the issues the article has.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
It is attributed analysis - and I don't quite see where the Polish language journal states that. Please note that BLPTALK applies vs. the chair of the ethnic and national relations study at the Polish Academy of Sciences's Institute of Slavic Studies who is a well respected and widely cited authority in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually Tokarska herself mentions this and calls Sorbona professor Ludwik Stomma who ridiculed her "ancient lizard"(best translation to her insult "praszczur" I could think of)and mastodont[53]</ref>
All the source you have brought shows is that Stomma, who per plwiki is also a columnist in Hustler magazine, disagreed with Tokarska-Bakir - a chair ethnic and national relations study. Unsurprisingly, Tokarska-Bakir's analysis continues to be quoted and cited - usually without Stomma.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Stomma is reliable,and actually seems to have both longer and higher scholar status that Tokarska.Worked at University of Warsaw,Krakow Jagiellonian University, Institute of Arts PAN, University of Torun, published over 14 books on ethnology and worked at Sorbonna University.Has dozens of dozens of scholarly articles.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

TAI Aksungur

  • ... that the unmanned aerial vehicle TAI Aksungur is able to carry up to 750 kg (1,650 lb) payload, and can be operated beyond-visual-range by SATCOM? Source: "... the air vehicle with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) "in excess" of 3,000 kg and a payload capacity of 750 kg." (in Turkish) [55]

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 10:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Not sure if I'll be able to give this a full review, but for now I'll leave a comment about the hook. I don't think it right now appeals to a broad audience since it seems to rely too much on technical words such as SATCOM. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks. The reason why I used the term "SATCOM" was to draw reader's attention. Anyway, does your mind change if I replace "SATCOM" with "communications satellite" in the hook? CeeGee 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. To a reader who is not interested in aviation or military stuff, the hook has a big "so what?" factor. The typical reader probably won't appreciate how or why a UAV can carry that amount of load, it requires knowledge about UAVs and their context as a whole. A new direction is probably needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm! You must have known what the broad reader is thinking. Maybe someone can suggest a hook in the direction of your thinking. Besides, must I call you repearedly to get an answer from you? CeeGee 03:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I read the DYK discussions I've participated in on an almost hourly basis, so I generally don't need to be pinged unless it's important. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You may not categorize DYK noms into important or not important. If you start a review you better progress in due time please. The noninator, in this case me, cannot know that you have alread read the response to your input. CeeGee 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In any case, a new hook is still probably needed here. The original hook remains too technical. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


Elongatoolithus, Nanhsiungoolithus

5x expanded by Ashorocetus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

Vera Blagojevi?

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg While the hook is okay, I wonder if something better can be proposed here: isn't it a given that activists would organize events such as strikes? The mention of her posthumously winning an award might have more potential as a hook I think. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

1826 Canary Islands storm

Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

Daksha Pattani

  • ... that Gujarati writer Daksha Pattani published six books on Mahatma Gandhi? Source: Pathak, Ajay (May 2019). Doshi, Deepak (ed.). "???. ????????? ???????? ??????" [Late Dakshabahen Vijayshankar Pattani]. Navneet Samarpan (in Gujarati). Mumbai: P. V. Shankarankutti, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. 40 (1): 113–115. ISSN 2455-4162
  • Reviewed: pending

Created by Nizil Shah (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article was moved from draftspace on 20 May, is over the required prose size and has no copyvio concerns. The hook has an inline citation although, as it is a foreign language source, it is AGF. Just waiting on a QPQ review to finish this one. Kosack (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ?N Barely 200 characters above the minimal requirements of 1500 and it's a stub, for all practical purposes. The hook is entirely non-interesting.
  • I am also doubtful about the notability of the subject. the volumes of Gujarati Sahityano Itihas contains bioraphies of hundreds of writers and is more of a catalog. It does not contribute to automatic-notability. WBGconverse 09:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean

  • ... that regarding Bolivia v. Chile, Pope Francis said, "Dialogue is indispensable. Instead of raising walls, we need to be building bridges."? Source: ""I'm thinking about the sea here," said the pope, referring to the ongoing dispute between the two countries which is set to be ruled upon by the International Court of Justice by the end of the year. "Dialogue is indispensable. Instead of raising walls, we need to be building bridges."" [56]
    • ALT1:... that Catholic bishops in Chile and Bolivia asked their congregants to accept the decision in Bolivia v. Chile? Source: "In an indication of the significance of the decision for both counties, Catholic bishops in Bolivia and Chile on Sunday called on their congregations to accept the court’s ruling “with faith, peace and good sense.”" [57]
    • ALT2:... that Bolivians gathered in public spaces across the country to watch the decision in Bolivia v. Chile be read out on large screens? "Back at home, people waved blue flags that symbolize the country’s demand for access to the ocean, as they watched the ruling on giant screens in squares and public areas." [58]
  • Reviewed: 5th DYK nom, QPQ not needed

Created/expanded by StudiesWorld (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

Anne Croy

Created by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 21[edit]

Charles Stapley

  • ... that Charles Stapley played 26 different roles in The Adventures of Robin Hood? Source: "Stapley suddenly found himself in demand on television, taking a different role every week in all 26 episodes of The Adventures of Robin Hood (1955-56)" ([59])
    • ALT1:... that ...?
  • Reviewed: not yet done

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article meets DYK article requirements, no close paraphrasing found, hook cited inline and verified. @Philafrenzy: Good to go once a QPQ has been done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Climax

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC).

Asplenium fontanum

  • ... that fountain spleenwort does not grow in Amersham churchyard, near a waterfall in northern England or on the castle walls at Alnwick? Source: "Supposed to be now extinct in England; it was once found on Amersham Church ... at a waterfall in either Northumberland or Westmoreland ... once grew on Alnwick Castle; but if so, it is no longer found there."

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC).

Eddie Gallagher (soldier)

  • Reviewed: Lawrence Minard
  • Comment: ALT1 is the same but shorter, although it misses one interesting fact. Note: Considering the accusations at hand, I'd like to avoid a "via Twitter" hook, suggesting it was due to Fox & Friends lobbying, or anything that's too playful. Best keep this entry serious.

Created by SnowFire (talk). Self-nominated at 04:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC).

Maddie Shevlin

  • Reviewed: tbd

Created by Teratix (talk). Self-nominated at 04:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC).

Rolando López Salinas

  • ... that suspected drug lord Rolando López Salinas survived two assassination attempts? Source: [Spanish]: "Recuerda que en 1999, cuando Lazcano se acababa de incorporar al cártel del Golfo, Cárdenas citó a Guzmán Decenas en una casa de seguridad en Reynosa, Tamaulipas, y le pidió juntar a 20 pistoleros para asesinar a Rolando López Salinas, El Roly, quien era amigo de Osiel." [English]: "Remember that in 1999, when Lazcano had just joined the Gulf cartel, Cárdenas summoned Guzmán Decena in a security house in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, and asked him to join 20 gunmen to assassinate Rolando López Salinas, El Roly, who was friend of Osiel." (Source 1) Source: [Spanish]: Uno de ellos eran Rolando López Salinas, el Rolis, quien habría sufrido un atentado el 22 de septiembre de 2000 en Miguel Alemán, del cual salió malherido su chofer Héctor Arias." / [English]: "One of them was Rolando López Salinas, the Rolis, who suffered an attack on September 22, 2000 in Miguel Alemán, from which his driver Hector Arias was injured." (Source 2)

Moved to mainspace by MX (talk). Self-nominated at 18:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

  • I'm currently too busy to review this, but the hook needs work. Mainly because it doesn't make it clear who this Salinas person is. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5 Thanks for the comment. How does it look now? I originally omitted his description b/c of BLP violation concerns, but Rolando is dead so I guess it wouldn’t apply. MX (? ? ?) 01:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Now the problem is that it's not exactly a high catching hook anymore: it's kind of a given that there would be regular threats to the lives of drug lords (as Pablo Escobar can probably attest to). We probably need a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Hopefully one of the alt hooks listed below helps. Thanks for the advice. MX (? ? ?) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think all the new hooks are better, with ALT1 and ALT3 being the most eye-catching. I'll leave the reviewing to another reviewer, though I'm open to picking this up if this remains stuck for a while or if my schedule opens up. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Karen Saywitz

Moved to mainspace by QuakerQuaker765 (talk). Nominated by QuakerSquirrel (talk) at 14:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Articles created/expanded on May 22[edit]

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code

  • ... that during 2019 election campaign, Indian National Congress promised to abolish the sedition law, but had charged 9,000 people in one instance while in power? Source 1: "In its manifesto released on Tuesday, Congress has promised to omit the Indian Penal Code Section 124A.", Source 2: "In 2012 and 2013, an astonishing number of 23,000 men and women who protested against a nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu were held for "waging war against the state" and sedition - 9,000 of them for sedition alone."

Created by Dharmadhyaksha (talk) and Rsrikanth05 (talk). Nominated by Dharmadhyaksha (talk) at 07:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC).

Die wundersame Schustersfrau

Udo Zimmermann in 2013
Udo Zimmermann in 2013

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 06:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC).

Paula R. Pietromonaco

  • ... that Paula R. Pietromonaco found that attachment styles affect how people think and behave during conflict? Source: Nauert, PhD, Rick (2012-08-03). "Close Relationships Influence Health, Happiness". PsychCentral. Retrieved 2019-05-23.

Created by Squirrel1847 (talk). Nominated by QuakerSquirrel (talk) at 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Ugh. I misspelled her name for the nomination. It's Pietromonaco not Pietromanco. Not sure how to change the nomination page name so leaving it for now. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic tomcod Hudson River adaptation

Created/expanded by Couiros22 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

Karin Takahashi (voice actress)

  • ... that voice actress Karin Takahashi originally aspired to become a lawyer? Source: [61] ("一度、小学生の時に弁護士になりたいと思っていたんですけど、高学年になってから、弱い人を守ることだけが弁護士の仕事じゃないということを知って、自分が思っているのと違ったかなと。")
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Kryczka (using Fred Page for QPQ purposes)
  • Comment: One of the sources used for citing the date of birth is a permanent dead link (I had copied it from her Japanese article, which was the basis for most of the biography section); however I added an alternate citation if in case the dead reference isn't adequate enough. Additional hook suggestions are welcome, although sources are a bit thin on her personal life.

Created by Narutolovehinata5 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

Resolved
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Large portions of the article are not cited, and this is a problem for an article that would appear on the main page. There are also odd sentences like this one (On her debut stage she unfortunately had hay fever and had to cover her right eye with an eye patch). "Unfortunately" is a very weird word choice as I doubt anyone has "fortunately" contracted hay fever. There are also two tags attached to the top of the page (This article needs additional citations for verification and This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling.). With all of this in mind, the article requires a substantial amount of work before it could be featured on the main page as a DYK. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Uh, I think you checked the wrong article. The article that's for review is Karin Takahashi (voice actress), not Karin Takahashi. To be fair, it was my mistake since I had accidentally linked to the wrong article in the hook. I've fixed the link now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. I was only going by the link presented in the hook, and like you said, you linked the incorrect article here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: So uh are you still considering reviewing this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I will leave this for another reviewer. The unnecessary “uh” and “so uh” comments turned me off this and I would prefer not to engage further. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. Well thank you for giving this consideration, in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Miracles of Gautama Buddha

  • ... that the Buddha called the greatest miracle the "miracle of instruction" because it turned one towards virtue? Source: pg 118 [62]

Moved to mainspace by Wikiman5676 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

Murder of Senicha Lessman

  • ... that before murdering his girlfriend, Vern Jason Mouelle searched for the phrase "How much time does it take to knock someone out with a rear naked choke" on his phone? Source: [64]

Created by FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk). Self-nominated at 00:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Length is long enough (2271 characters readable prose size), both hooks are in the article, does not need a QPQ (only has 1 DYK credit). Everything seems to be sourced, however, I have not done a full check. Article should be eligible. Dreamy Jazz ?? talk to me | my contributions 19:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Luys i Luso

Created by Dreamy Jazz (talk). Self-nominated at 18:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

  • I have also struck the first 3, as I feel the ones about God will get the page more pageviews, as it leaves more details out (and so leaving viewers wanting more). If a reviewer feels that the hooks about God are not good enough, then I will be open to the idea about using the striked ones. Dreamy Jazz ?? talk to me | my contributions 18:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on May 23[edit]

Alfred V?kt